# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Stef Molyneux's Critique on Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

## eOs



----------


## Andrew-Austin

Excellent analysis as always from him. Sounds like the film has some positives, but also has some ridiculous negatives, such as the planned obsolescence conspiracy, which I agree sounds like they have not gotten close to reading the opposition and might as well not know Austrian Economics exists... Which would be kind of strange that the film makers hadn't heard of it considering that A-Econ shares a great deal of their perspective on the banking system. And damn they even mention Mises and completely misrepresent him? 

Marxism with robots! lol

----------


## Captain America

This movie is all over the place.

----------


## dannno

He says the same thing at the end that i say to my roommate.. they should totally go for it, and try it if they want. Of course it will only work in a free society where they are allowed to go off and live on their Zeitgeist cloud, with no money, "begging for their porridge each morning from HAL" or something along those lines..

But I also try and point out the same things he does about planned economies and misinterpretations of the free market.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

I liked most of that. 

Somehow I'm beginning to think that the people at the Venus project will do whatever they can, peaceful or not. They have to have all of the world's resources to do this stuff. They don't really have any other choice but to do it (get there) by violence.

----------


## Flash

> I liked most of that. 
> 
> Somehow I'm beginning to think that the people at the Venus project will do whatever they can, peaceful or not. They have to have all of the world's resources to do this stuff. They don't really have any other choice but to do it (get there) by violence.


There's a violent element within the Venus Project. They view natural resources as the common heritage of Humanity. So some of them DO support taking resources from their neighbor's property to share with the community.

----------


## sharpsteve2003

Great Review

----------


## Reason

Very happy that he made a video on this.

----------


## __27__



----------


## Wren

I used to support the venus project until I researched it more thoroughly. I remember listening to Peter Joseph during one of his radio briefings where he answers questions and there was one particular question where a viewer asks if there will be police implemented in this new society? How else do they plan on detaining violent offenders? Throw them free flowers? Anyway, peter's answer shocked me. He said that he didn't even KNOW whether or not there would be a police system needed in order to temporarily detain people. He said something along the lines of "Well, I guess in those instances, there would need to be some sort of police system implemented". So the guy making the film isn't even aware of all the full details and whether or not there would need to be involuntary force implemented in this new﻿ society. 

Another point that drew me away even further: Everything needs to be shared. They do not recognize property rights and believe people should have access to everything like a public library but should return whatever they used back to where it came from. Isn't this basically communism with a different twist? 

But anyway, I enjoyed Addendum for awhile until I researched it more thoroughly and the 3rd one is great in the beginning when they go into detail about nature vs. nurture, but it all goes downhill from there. Stef gave a great review here, it would be interesting to see him debate peter joseph.

----------


## Vessol

Stefan's review follows very closely to what my thoughts were when I watched it.

I, however, do have reservations as stated before me if their system is truly voluntary. Especially considering their complete disregard for property.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

As this series of movies goes on, the time that the $#@! hits the fan strikes earlier and earlier. By the time the fourth movie comes around, methinks it'll be a visual and aural sewer.

----------


## dannno

Roommate watched the review and disagreed with all of the rebuttals. 

His primary concern:

Competition leads to state power

----------


## hazek

Tell your roommate to join one of Stefs live shows and debate him on it. Stef is always willing to listen and debate and be proven wrong.

----------


## akforme

> I used to support the venus project until I researched it more thoroughly. I remember listening to Peter Joseph during one of his radio briefings where he answers questions and there was one particular question where a viewer asks if there will be police implemented in this new society? How else do they plan on detaining violent offenders? Throw them free flowers? Anyway, peter's answer shocked me. He said that he didn't even KNOW whether or not there would be a police system needed in order to temporarily detain people. He said something along the lines of "Well, I guess in those instances, there would need to be some sort of police system implemented". So the guy making the film isn't even aware of all the full details and whether or not there would need to be involuntary force implemented in this new﻿ society. 
> 
> Another point that drew me away even further: Everything needs to be shared. They do not recognize property rights and believe people should have access to everything like a public library but should return whatever they used back to where it came from. Isn't this basically communism with a different twist? 
> 
> But anyway, I enjoyed Addendum for awhile until I researched it more thoroughly and the 3rd one is great in the beginning when they go into detail about nature vs. nurture, but it all goes downhill from there. Stef gave a great review here, it would be interesting to see him debate peter joseph.


Peter Joseph annoys the hell out of me and I haven't had the desire to see anymore of his films past the first Zeitgeist.  

He did an interview about how he hates secrets and likes to divulge them, yet he loves his secrets, and wouldn't discuss some of them and was pissed at the interviewer for trying to find them out.

----------


## Fredom101

> As this series of movies goes on, the time that the $#@! hits the fan strikes earlier and earlier. By the time the fourth movie comes around, methinks it'll be a visual and aural sewer.


Exactly. The first one was pretty solid throughout, the second one screwed the pooch about 1 hour in, this one took about 40 minutes before all the nonsense about the free market started! I'm sure the 4th one will start off with someone saying that the free market=slavery!

----------


## Fredom101

> Stef gave a great review here, it would be interesting to see him debate peter joseph.


Stef did a critique on ZG Addendum, and he used some ad hominem attacks on Peter Joseph. PJ then made a video responding to Stef's comments, and unfortunately PJ looked better even though he was wrong, because he focused on Stef essentially calling him "retarded". It's worth searching youtube for these videos, because Stef's critique is factually correct, but he really screwed up by using the personal/ad hominem attacks.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Stef did a critique on ZG Addendum, and he used some ad hominem attacks on Peter Joseph. PJ then made a video responding to Stef's comments, and unfortunately PJ looked better even though he was wrong, because he focused on Stef essentially calling him "retarded". It's worth searching youtube for these videos, because Stef's critique is factually correct, but he really screwed up by using the personal/ad hominem attacks.


Did he actually attack PJ?   As I remember it, he was attacking the ideas as being retarded, not any person in particular.  Maybe I'm mistaken.

Either way, he could've articulated that in a bit more respectful manner for sure. It definitely did give them an excuse to just write off his valid arguments without thinking about them.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Roommate watched the review and disagreed with all of the rebuttals.


I'm shocked. 




> His primary concern:
> 
> Competition leads to state power


The hubris in that statement is astounding.  The logical conclusion of what he said, is something I've always suspected of Zeitgeisters.  They don't want any competition on their ideas.  "My ideas are right, I understand how to solve all of the worlds problems, and all of your competing ideas are wrong and shouldnt even be allowed to exist."

How are we supposed to determine the effectiveness of ideas and resources, without somethign to compare them to?  Comparison is a competition.


How exactly do they plan on eliminating the competitive nature of humans and technological advancement?  I don't see how it's possible without coercion/statism....

----------


## dannno

> How are we supposed to determine the effectiveness of ideas and resources, without somethign to compare them to?  Comparison is a competition.


Good argument. They'll probably say 'science', but I'm not sure that science can obtain the true value of something.





> How exactly do they plan on eliminating the competitive nature of humans and technological advancement?  I don't see how it's possible without coercion/statism....


They want to do it through a consciousness revolution.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Good argument. They'll probably say 'science', but I'm not sure that science can obtain the true value of something.


Even the scientific method by it's very nature is competitive.  The idea is to test competing theories to see which one fits best with the evidence...

If there is no competition on scientific theories, doesn't that just mean we already know all the right answers in science?




> They want to do it through a consciousness revolution.


I support a conscious revolution that rejects coercion... but competition????   I just can't understand why they'd want to get rid such a thing, int he first place... to be perfectly honest.  Competition is a beautiful thing, which almost always leads to progress and a further understanding of the world around us, so long as coercion is absent from it.

----------


## Fredom101

> Did he actually attack PJ?   As I remember it, he was attacking the ideas as being retarded, not any person in particular.  Maybe I'm mistaken.
> 
> Either way, he could've articulated that in a bit more respectful manner for sure. It definitely did give them an excuse to just write off his valid arguments without thinking about them.


I'd have to go back and watch again, but I think Stef was saying things like "you'd have to be retarded to believe that", which is an ad hominem. I appreciate Stef's vast work but he can get into attack mode sometimes and it doesn't serve him.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'd have to go back and watch again, but I think Stef was saying things like "you'd have to be retarded to believe that", which is an ad hominem. I appreciate Stef's vast work but he can get into attack mode sometimes and it doesn't serve him.


Yea, I agree.  I'm guilty of the same kind of behavior myself at times, and need to make a sincere conscious effort to correct it.

----------


## dannno

Does anybody remember the clip of Stef that was posted fairly recently where he talks about how it wouldn't be beneficial for corporations to create their own armies to oppress their competition because they would have to raise their prices to invest in the armies and it would make people upset at the corporation itself and they would stop supporting them?

----------


## Flash

> Does anybody remember the clip of Stef that was posted fairly recently where he talks about how it wouldn't be beneficial for corporations to create their own armies to oppress their competition because they would have to raise their prices to invest in the armies and it would make people upset at the corporation itself and they would stop supporting them?


Not sure of the clip but he talks about this for an entire chapter in Practical Anarchy on his site.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Does anybody remember the clip of Stef that was posted fairly recently where he talks about how it wouldn't be beneficial for corporations to create their own armies to oppress their competition because they would have to raise their prices to invest in the armies and it would make people upset at the corporation itself and they would stop supporting them?


It's discussed in this interview at some point.. can't remember exactly when.  This might be a worthwhile one to get your room mate to watch.  Cveitch comes from the a sort of anarcho-communist/syndicalist/socialist/whatever school of thought, I believe, but is really open minded to alternative arguments and asks really really good questions.

----------


## dannno

> It's discussed in this interview at some point.. can't remember exactly when.  This might be a worthwhile one to get your room mate to watch.  Cveitch comes from the a sort of anarcho-communist/syndicalist/socialist/whatever school of thought, I believe, but is really open minded to alternative arguments and asks really really good questions.


Wow, ya, that's the one.. I actually wanted my roommate to watch this as he became enthralled with the Love Police guy a couple weeks ago and posted it on his facebook.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Here's peter joseph's response to stefan's critique of the movie.  I can only hope that this triggers a live conversation between these 2.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Here's peter joseph's response to stefan's critique of the movie.  I can only hope that this triggers a live conversation between these 2.


His fundamental premise (that a "poor person" is "trapped by the system" of the free market) is fundamentally flawed.  In a free market, a person can CREATE his own prosperity by innovating and creating products/services from scratch to meet market demand. (plus, there hasn't been a truly free market in many generations) I only watched the intro, but I can see that from this false premise he will only end up in complete FAIL by the end of the vid. Thanks for posting, tho.

----------


## Vessol

"This is a global movement, there is no isolation...We WILL have an economic system based on tangible resources and not monetary systems..the paradigm is over..you just wait and see...this system is a self-mutating cancer and it's time the immune system stands up to take it down"

Sounds like he pretty much threw the idea of this being a voluntary peaceful movement out the $#@!ing window right quick. They'll have their Zeitgeist society, with the point of a gun pointed at our heads if we refuse.

I only skimmed the last part. He attacks Stefan for calling the Zeitgeist movement Marxist, but he never refutes how the Zeitgeist movement isn't Marxist. It's central planning, no matter how you cut it, that's Marxism.

----------


## ClayTrainor

The amount of ad-hominem personal attacks against Stefan in the comments section is staggering.

----------


## Mach

> 


bump

----------


## Romulus

I agree with Stef 100%. There are some positives in ZG (the first part about science and human behavior) but after that it is largely a bogus concept.

If ZG 3 thinks their model would be a utopia then is based on 100% perfection of a human. Our behavior can not be perfected, so their theory isn't based on reality.

Someone needs to splice together the truths of ZG. That is the first movie, part I of ZG2 and part I of ZG3. Then you'd have a solid winner.

----------


## dannno

> His fundamental premise (that a "poor person" is "trapped by the system" of the free market) is fundamentally flawed.  In a free market, a person can CREATE his own prosperity by innovating and creating products/services from scratch to meet market demand. (plus, there hasn't been a truly free market in many generations) I only watched the intro, but I can see that from this false premise he will only end up in complete FAIL by the end of the vid. Thanks for posting, tho.


Ugh.. my roommate put up this response and within a couple minutes I was explaining the exact same thing, and how they are talking past each other because third world countries with central banks where the elite have taken all the property from the indigenous and forced them to move into debt slavery in impoverished areas are NOT free markets..

So my roommate ended up watching the rest later and said he destroyed Stefan.. I have a feeling he may have done so by saying more things that are just untrue, like the first couple minutes, so I'll have to go back and watch it I guess..

If anybody else has critiques on things he says later on, feel free to post them up and help me out.

----------


## NiceGoing

Very interesting points - thanks!

----------


## Ricky201

I had a employer who I discuss politics with and we debate quite a bit regarding the ideas put through on Zeitgeist.  I have only watched parts of the film and he has told me about the Venus Project and the idea of a resource based economy.  My main thing I asked him was "how are they going to enforce something like this if a willing participant isn't so willing to give certain fruits of his labor?", and he still hasn't given me an answer.  I ended up giving him an article written by Rothbard about Anarcho-Marxism which is what I identify the the Venus Project with.  He was fairly upset with my analysis so I back tracked and thought well maybe this isn't what Zeitgeist hopes to accomplish.  However, after viewing this review I am reassured that my first assumption was right and that Zeitgeist promotes a complete contradictory society which is Anarcho-Marxism.

----------


## Romulus

> I had a employer who I discuss politics with and we debate quite a bit regarding the ideas put through on Zeitgeist.  I have only watched parts of the film and he has told me about the Venus Project and the idea of a resource based economy.  My main thing I asked him was "how are they going to enforce something like this if a willing participant isn't so willing to give certain fruits of his labor?", and he still hasn't given me an answer.  I ended up giving him an article written by Rothbard about Anarcho-Marxism which is what I identify the the Venus Project with.  He was fairly upset with my analysis so I back tracked and thought well maybe this isn't what Zeitgeist hopes to accomplish.  However, after viewing this review I am reassured that my first assumption was right and that Zeitgeist promotes a complete contradictory society which is *Anarcho-Marxism*.


And peter joesphs repsonse would be to just laugh and call you someone who calls everything "Marxist" with no rebuttal on why his flavor of central planning is NOT Marxism.

His response to Stef is pretty weak.. I could barely skim over it.

----------


## EndDaFed

> And peter joesphs repsonse would be to just laugh and call you someone who calls everything "Marxist" with no rebuttal on why his flavor of central planning is NOT Marxism.
> 
> His response to Stef is pretty weak.. I could barely skim over it.


It's stupid. It's like saying to someone to prove they are not a secret supporter of Hitler. You can't prove a negative and it's just a sophisticated method of name calling. Stef should know better.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It's stupid. It's like saying to someone to prove they are not a secret supporter of Hitler. You can't prove a negative and it's just a sophisticated method of name calling. Stef should know better.


No it's actually logical, based on the words of marx himself.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Karl Marx

Yea... TZM shouldn't have to address this criticism at all.  It's soo stupid.  Stef should know better than to apply basic logic and reason to his arguments.  

It's not name calling, it's a legitime critique.  Peter Joseph should address the REASONS as to why TZM is different than marx's theory, not just laugh it off with sarcastic comments, and call it stupid.

----------


## Vessol

> It's stupid. It's like saying to someone to prove they are not a secret supporter of Hitler. You can't prove a negative and it's just a sophisticated method of name calling. Stef should know better.


Marxism=Central Planning. There's no way around that.

----------


## Fredom101

I don't agree with any of the ZG solution, but I'm glad the movies were made as it is sparking a fun and interesting discussion!

----------


## demolama

His response to Stef is basically... you are in your own little money-loving world and have no clue what you are talking about

----------


## EndDaFed

> No it's actually logical, based on the words of marx himself.
> 
> The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Karl Marx
> 
> Yea... TZM shouldn't have to address this criticism at all.  It's soo stupid.  Stef should know better than to apply basic logic and reason to his arguments.  
> 
> It's not name calling, it's a legitime critique.  Peter Joseph should address the REASONS as to why TZM is different than marx's theory, not just laugh it off with sarcastic comments, and call it stupid.


The burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. In this case it would be Stefbot. Given that he has not sufficiently went over the material and pointed out where Zeitgeist fits all 10 planks of the communist manifesto or how it in any way is anything like communism's end goal his criticism is more from emotion than rationality. A mere declaration does not make it so. 

Prove to me you're not a blood thirsty anarchist who wants chaos! You are against the state. You must be an evil car burning anarchist!!!! What rational response is there to that other than to laugh it off? It's absurd.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim.


And Peter Joseph claims TZM is not Marxist.  When will he prove it with reason, instead of mockery?




> In this case it would be Stefbot. Given that he has not sufficiently went over the material and pointed out where Zeitgeist fits all 10 planks of the communist manifesto or how it in any way is anything like communism's end goal his criticism is more from emotion than rationality. A mere declaration does not make it so.


TZM wants to get rid of the concept of private property and.....

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”. Karl Marx

The 10 planks are just Marx's plan for achieving communism, but above is the basic principle of communism, according to marx.

The burden of proof is on the TZM to explain how they aren't in line with Marx's theory as they have claimed, because according to Marx in his own words, it absolutely is.  Just saying "no i'm not" and then mocking the people asking the questions, is not a valid intellectual response, it is a cop-out.




> Prove to me you're not a blood thirsty anarchist who wants chaos! You are against the state. You must be an evil car burning anarchist!!!! What rational response is there to that other than to laugh it off? It's absurd.


Actually, that's very easy to respond to in a rational way.  I support the non-aggression principle, and reject violence and aggression as legitimate ways to solve social problems. 

No mockery required!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Marxism=Central Planning. There's no way around that.


Exactly!  Marxism is just central planning taken to a radical extreme, that even Keynesians are wary of.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


The man with two first names has just upped the ante. Peter Joseph is an expert at obfuscation. He has tons of believers world wide.

I'm a little curious how the robots will know when the produce is ripe enough to pick, how they will package and load the trucks, and when will they learn to drive the big rigs to deliver these resourced based goods to the people for free. I do like the concept of everything for free ... as long as I'm first in line.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I do like the concept of everything for free ... as long as I'm first in line.


haha, that's a very effective way of getting the point across.  Well said!

----------


## paulitics

> The man with two first names has just upped the ante. Peter Joseph is an expert at obfuscation. He has tons of believers world wide.
> 
> I'm a little curious how the robots will know when the produce is ripe enough to pick, how they will package and load the trucks, and when will they learn to drive the big rigs to deliver these resourced based goods to the people for free. I do like the concept of everything for free ... as long as I'm first in line.


You know what else is great.  Evil, theft, corruption won't exist in Peter Joseph's utopia, so everyone will get just the right amount, in just the right time.  Those in control of the robots will never cheat.  Everyone will get the exact right amount for their needs, and this will just be scientifically known at all times.

----------


## dannno

> I'm a little curious how the robots will know when the produce is ripe enough to pick, how they will package and load the trucks, and when will they learn to drive the big rigs to deliver these resourced based goods to the people for free. I do like the concept of everything for free ... as long as I'm first in line.


Actually, they do have robots that know when the produce is ripe enough to pick by color/size/softness of the outer shell, they can use robots to load the produce and they plan on using mag lev trains and pressurized tubes for transport. 

If building all this technology (takes resources) resulted in a less expensive product (less resources to produce), then private companies would already be doing it. 

It doesn't make sense that private industry would hold back technology on their own, it only makes sense that the large producers might use government coercion to stop technology that would make it easier for other producers to compete with them.

----------


## dannno

You know what else wouldn't exist in the Zeitgeist world? Poker. You know what my roommate is doing right now? Calling his friends over to play poker.

----------


## Travlyr

Peter Joseph's stern statement at the end of the video is a bit concerning. Paraphrasing - _We are going to have a resource based economy one way or another no matter how much death and destruction must happen first._ Hummmm....

----------


## Travlyr

> You know what else is great.  Evil, theft, corruption won't exist in Peter Joseph's utopia, so everyone will get just the right amount, in just the right time.  Those in control of the robots will never cheat.  Everyone will get the exact right amount for their needs, and this will just be scientifically known at all times.


I can't wait! Utopia at last!

----------


## dannno

> Peter Joseph's stern statement at the end of the video is a bit concerning. Paraphrasing - _We are going to have a resource based economy one way or another no matter how much death and destruction must happen first._ Hummmm....


To be fair, he's supposedly kinda saying the same thing as when Ron Paul says the wars will end one way or another, one of these days we will be broke, or the Fed is going to end itself, etc..

I'm not saying that the Zeitgeist movement won't make some massive army and go out and kill dissenters, but currently none of the people I know involved in the movement would support that.

----------


## Travlyr

> To be fair, he's supposedly kinda saying the same thing as when Ron Paul says the wars will end one way or another, one of these days we will be broke, or the Fed is going to end itself, etc..
> 
> I'm not saying that the Zeitgeist movement won't make some massive army and go out and kill dissenters, but currently none of the people I know involved in the movement would support that.


Okay. Fair enough.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Peter Joseph's stern statement at the end of the video is a bit concerning. Paraphrasing - _We are going to have a resource based economy one way or another no matter how much death and destruction must happen first._ Hummmm....


It's also interesting how he made that statement right before Stefan was about to introduce the "against me" argument in his clip.  Peter never addressed the against me argument, and chose not to even play it for his viewers... that tells me everything i need to know about Peter Joseph and his TZM

----------


## Travlyr

> It's also interesting how he made that statement right before Stefan was about to introduce the "against me" argument in his clip.  Peter never addressed the against me argument, and chose not to even play it for his viewers... that tells me everything i need to know about TZM.


Yeah, he told me everything I need to know about it too. And Peter talks on and on about sustainability and resources but not one mention of industrial hemp. He is not honest, imo.

----------


## Romulus

> You know what else is great.  *Evil, theft, corruption won't exist* in Peter Joseph's utopia, so everyone will get just the right amount, in just the right time.  Those in control of the robots will never cheat.  Everyone will get the exact right amount for their needs, and this will just be scientifically known at all times.


I'm sure you're being sarcastic... but

What if your neighbor has a hot wife, you go and bang her 4 times a day until her husband finds out and kills you? How will Peter Joesph end that 'evil, theft and corruption'?

He essentially brings up the 'utopia' argument in ZG3 then laughs it off with no rebuttal as to why his ideals are pure fantasy devoid of any human instinctual nature.

----------


## TortoiseDream

> Here's peter joseph's response to stefan's critique of the movie.  I can only hope that this triggers a live conversation between these 2.


My head started to hurt after so much facepalming...

----------


## osan

> How exactly do they plan on eliminating the  competitive nature of humans and technological advancement?  I don't see  how it's possible without coercion/statism....







> They want to do it through a consciousness revolution.


Break out the Brigade of Bunnies and Light!

Break out the thorazine.

----------


## dannno

> My head started to hurt after so much facepalming...


Ya I'm not sure what my roommate was thinking. We've already agreed that corporations control government and bring about monopolization of industries and that a free market would be preferable to our current system, yet that $#@!tard PJ started saying how government regulations RESTRAIN corporations from becoming monopolies, and without it our system would have flopped 4 times over already.. Losing a lot of  respect I had for PJ.. he does "get" a lot of stuff, amazing how wrong he can be knowing how much control they have over the whole system.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ya I'm not sure what my roommate was thinking. We've already agreed that corporations control government and bring about monopolization of industries and that a free market would be preferable to our current system, yet that $#@!tard PJ started saying how government regulations RESTRAIN corporations from becoming monopolies, and without it our system would have flopped 4 times over already.. Losing a lot of  respect I had for PJ.. he does "get" a lot of stuff, amazing how wrong he can be knowing how much control they have over the whole system.



I think it's fair to say that PJ thinks the world would be better if he, or someone who thinks exactly like him, was in control... rather than there being no supreme controller.

This is why i think it's laughable to call TZM an anarchist movement. The whole thing is based on Central economic planning.

----------


## __27__

> I think it's fair to say that PJ thinks the world would be better if he, or someone who thinks exactly like him, was in control... rather than there being no supreme controller.
> 
> This is why i think it's laughable to call TZM an anarchist movement. The whole thing is based on Central economic planning.


Another good response video re: TZM central planning:

----------


## Jeremy

Here is the Zeitgeist response to Stefan




I can't believe some people here used to like this Marxist.

edit: I think someone already posted this?

----------


## __27__

> Here is the Zeitgeist response to Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe some people here used to like this Marxist.
> 
> edit: I think someone already posted this?


Yep, a few times.  Probably one of YT's most embedded videos lately.

----------


## Jeremy

ROFL, look how elite they are trying to look:

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Another good response video re: TZM central planning:


QED.

I'm pretty sure stefan is making a response to PJ's response as well... should be interesting.  I'd pay to see PJ actually have to debate an an-cap.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Here's another great response.

----------


## eOs

Can't wait for Stef's response to the fascist Peter Joseph

----------


## hugolp

Its funny that the Venus project and Zeitgest claim not to be marxists. Why not come clean and just admit what it is obvious?

----------


## demolama

> Its funny that the Venus project and Zeitgest claim not to be marxists. Why not come clean and just admit what it is obvious?


Because Marxism has a bad stigma attached to it.   Why won't progressives admit they are socialists?  Same reason. 

My question is...

So when does everyone get their hands on a Monet original?   oh wait everyone can't so therefore I'm going to have to steal it.  But I thought there wouldn't be greed?  This type of "new" thinking won't eliminate human nature.  There will always be someone out there that wants more resource than others. 

Where does innovation come from?  Who designs and builds these new robots?   Surely they need more resources than the rest to build prototypes and fail thousands of times before they get it right.   So there has to be a group of people who are "special" over the rest of us.    How then will it be different than any other regime if they have elites who live by a separate rule than the rest of us?

----------


## Travlyr

Thanks for posting this video!



> ROFL, look how elite they are trying to look:


Before I watched this video, I was leaning toward Zeitgeist & The Venus Project being an arm of the _powers-that-be_ elite because somebody (undisclosed) is funding their elaborate world tours. The elite's Hegelian Dialectic MO seemed to fit this scenario.

But now... I dono. I've toured Oxford University with a Rhodes Scholar candidate and I know first hand that they don't hire dummies. These people have a few loose screws. It's hard to know what's up. They do have some things right. Tossing a briefcase full of dollars at the state is a likely result of finding out that fiat currency eventually becomes worthless, but real money is the answer ... not no money.

----------


## Romulus

Neo-Marxism.

No money, or medium of exchange is a system of control, just like debt and fiat currency are systems of control too.

----------


## Nate

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." ~H.L. Mencken

Nothing but neo-marxists who are too chicken $#@! to admit what they believe in. Same lies & ignorant BS wrapped in a new package.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Stefs reply to PJ is up...

----------


## ClayTrainor

Just wanted to give this one quick bump, because of the new content I just added.

Cheers!

----------


## Wren

> Stefs reply to PJ is up...


Bump.. 

Great response, kept calling him out on central planning. Good to know that stef managed to be polite in this one

Maybe the OP should edit these responses into his original post for easy viewership

----------


## Jeremy

I subscribe and unsubscribe to Setfan's channel because I disagree with some of his other views (on religion and political action).  But these two videos definitely made me resubscribe again.

I love his attitude.  The Zeitgeist guy was very rude and a large portion of his video was insults.  Stefan is very respectful and even ended his video with a kiss, ROFL!  The respect shows he is more intellectually mature.

----------


## Romulus

> I subscribe and unsubscribe to Setfan's channel because I disagree with some of his other views (on religion and political action).  But these two videos definitely made me resubscribe again.
> 
> I love his attitude.  The Zeitgeist guy was very rude and a large portion of his video was insults.  Stefan is very respectful and even ended his video with a kiss, ROFL!  The respect shows he is more intellectually mature.


PJ comes off as arrogant and pretentious.. I like how Stef politely calls him out on his avoidance of the core issues. How is the Venus Project NOT central planning / AKA NeoMarxism? Simple question.. PJ 60min response avoids the question.

----------


## sevin

Stefan Molyneux is a genius. I've actually started listening to his podcasts because of this thread.

----------


## Fredom101

> Stefan Molyneux is a genius. I've actually started listening to his podcasts because of this thread.


Yeah, Ron Paul 08 led me to Stefan's podcasts and I could no longer reject the arguments for anarchism after that. I liked this last video he did on ZG because it was straight to the point. I wish he would have PJ on the show. Both are smart guys, it would be a very interesting debate, much better than back-and-forth videos.

----------


## emazur

> Yeah, Ron Paul 08 led me to Stefan's podcasts and I could no longer reject the arguments for anarchism after that. I liked this last video he did on ZG because it was straight to the point. I wish he would have PJ on the show. Both are smart guys, it would be a very interesting debate, much better than back-and-forth videos.


I'd also like to them them debate it live.  Last time I saw Peter Joseph debate someone was on the Alex Jones Show when Addendum came out, and that was an absolute train wreck b/c AJ went completely hysterical and basically just called him a new world order shill the whole time while PJ remained calm.  That's a weakness of Alex when he interviews someone he doesn't like - see also the David Rothschild interview.

----------


## ClayTrainor

I'd love to see them debate as well, but I think it's a losing propopsition for Peter Joseph, and I expect that he knows it... so I don't think it'll happen.  His "movement" has nothing to gain from such an interaction and everything to lose.

----------


## Wren

*The call for a debate has been answered!* 




> Upcoming Show: 2/7/2011 12:00 PM    
> Host Name: V RADIO
> Show Name: Stefan Molyneux of FreeDomain radio interview!
> Date / Length: 2/7/2011 11:00 AM - 1 hr
> Length: 1 hr
> 
> By popular demand Stefan Molyneux of FreeDoman radio is coming to V-RADIO to discuss his concerns with The Venus Project, and The Zeitgeist Movement. This will be a civil dialog, not an argument.


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview

There's an option where the site can remind you when to tune in

----------


## Jeremy

> Yeah, Ron Paul 08 led me to Stefan's podcasts and I could no longer reject the arguments for anarchism after that. I liked this last video he did on ZG because it was straight to the point. I wish he would have PJ on the show. Both are smart guys, it would be a very interesting debate, much better than back-and-forth videos.


What's wrong is how he criticizes political action (at least he used to) and Ron Paul, but doesn't realize you don't need to win in politics to actually win (through education).  Ian Freeman is the same way.  Yet ironically, he was converted by Harry Browne.

----------


## Jeremy

Just looking at the Venus Project wikipedia page... I'm just ROFLing...

How is this not central planning?



I don't want to laugh, because laughing isn't arguing anything or making an opinion... but I can't help it... this is too much!

----------


## Travlyr

> Just looking at the Venus Project wikipedia page... I'm just ROFLing...
> 
> How is this not central planning?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to laugh, because laughing isn't arguing anything or making an opinion... but I can't help it... this is too much!


Hey! Stop laughing! That's perfection! I've been waiting all my life for Utopia and it's finally here.

----------


## emazur

> The call for a debate has been answered! 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview
> 
> There's an option where the site can remind you when to tune in


 Cool, hopefully Peter Joseph will be on as well instead of a Zeitgeist rep.  I noticed this as well but haven't listened to it:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...rian-neo-troll
_On this episode of V-RADIO we are proud once again to have Brandy Hume of the Venus Project challenge. Together she and I are going to debunk an article entitled "Venus needs some Austrians". From the Ludwig Von Mises institute. V-RADIO is still looking for donations for this month so please consider going to V-RADIO.org and donating to keep us on the air! Thanks again to all the supporters of V-RADIO!_

I'm somewhat interested but don't really feel like listening.  Any takers?

----------


## Fredom101

> I'd also like to them them debate it live.  Last time I saw Peter Joseph debate someone was on the Alex Jones Show when Addendum came out, and that was an absolute train wreck b/c AJ went completely hysterical and basically just called him a new world order shill the whole time while PJ remained calm.  That's a weakness of Alex when he interviews someone he doesn't like - see also the David Rothschild interview.


Yeah I heard that AJ/PJ debate, you're completely right. I went into it thinking that AJ would clean his clock, but PJ came out the winner hands down, even though his ideas are clearly inferior to the free market. AJ isn't very good at debate because when most people see 1 person going ape$#@! and the other remaining calm, they will assume that the ape$#@! guy is insane and obviously wrong.

----------


## Fredom101

> What's wrong is how he criticizes political action (at least he used to) and Ron Paul, but doesn't realize you don't need to win in politics to actually win (through education).  Ian Freeman is the same way.  Yet ironically, he was converted by Harry Browne.


Yeah but most people on this board would disagree with you and think that Ron Paul needs to WIN! I don't even think winning is in the cards at all, in fact, it may actually hurt the cause for liberty- the next 3-5 years are going to be a disaster for the US because of damage that can't really be undone at this point. Can you imagine the media going crazy blaming everything on libertarianism if RP was in office? By the time all his cuts started working he'd be run out of office and we'd have a full-on totalitarian in there.

I say let's focus on RP's superior ideas and use his candidacy to get these ideas across. Ideas are bulletbroof, candidates can be torn down for a number of inconsequential reasons.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> *The call for a debate has been answered!* 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview
> 
> There's an option where the site can remind you when to tune in


Awesome!

I really look forward to this.  So far, this conversation has been very educational for me.  I've learned so much about the importance of the economic calculation problem and how to articulate to others.

----------


## Jeremy

Some scary stuff:




> According to Fresco, poverty, crime, corruption and war are the result of scarcity created by the present world's profit-based economic system. He theorizes that the profit motive also stifles the progress of socially beneficial technology. Fresco claims that the progression of technology, if it were carried on independently of its profitability, would make more resources available to more people by producing an abundance of products and materials. This new-found abundance of resources would, according to Fresco, reduce the human tendency toward individualism, corruption, and greed, and instead rely on people helping each other.[7][non-primary source needed] Fresco believes it is now possible to achieve a society in which people would live "longer, healthier, and more meaningful lives." [8] Fresco believes the monetary system and the processes associated with it, such as labour and competition, damages society and holds people back from their true potentials. He states his ideas would maximally benefit the greatest number of people. He claims some of his ideas stem from his formative years during the Great Depression.[9] Fresco believes the current global economic system will have to see a major crisis before people start to lose the confidence in the monetary system and start looking for other directions.[10] Fundamental to the project is what Fresco calls a "resource-based economy". A resource-based economy utilizes existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.[11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project#Theory

End profit?  Oh my...

----------


## hugolp

> According to Fresco, poverty, crime, corruption and war are the result of scarcity created by the present world's profit-based economic system.


Those greedy caveman that went to hunt with profit in their minds... If they only knew THE TRUTH about the world and abandoned the "profit motive" food would have come on its own to their cave.




> He theorizes that the profit motive also stifles the progress of socially beneficial technology. Fresco claims that the progression of technology, if it were carried on independently of its profitability, would make more resources available to more people by producing an abundance of products and materials.


Not only that, they would have discovered clean nuclear energy as well.

But they did not had this great prophet to warn them about the "profit motive" and they had to live a scarce live.

----------


## __27__

> Those greedy caveman that went to hunt with profit in their minds... If they only knew THE TRUTH about the world and abandoned the "profit motive" food would have come on its own to their cave. Not only that, they would have discovered clean nuclear energy as well.
> 
> But they did not had this great prophet to warn them about the "profit motive" and they had to live a scarce live.


Speaking of, I'm far more concerned about the "Prophet Motive" than I am the profit motive with this movement...

----------


## hugolp

> Speaking of, I'm far more concerned about the "Prophet Motive" than I am the profit motive with this movement...


Indeed.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Speaking of, I'm far more concerned about the "Prophet Motive" than I am the profit motive with this movement...


hahahahha.... well put!

----------


## Romulus

> I'd also like to them them debate it live.  Last time I saw Peter Joseph debate someone was on the Alex Jones Show when Addendum came out, and that was an absolute train wreck b/c AJ went completely hysterical and basically just called him a new world order shill the whole time while PJ remained calm.  That's a weakness of Alex when he interviews someone he doesn't like - see also the David Rothschild interview.


Actually I remember PJ getting all worked up because he couldn't refute what AJ was saying.... its on youtube somewhere I bet..

----------


## Romulus

> Just looking at the Venus Project wikipedia page... I'm just ROFLing...
> 
> How is this not central planning?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to laugh, because laughing isn't arguing anything or making an opinion... but I can't help it... this is too much!


Fools! Its inner median arrangment! Dont be ridiculous!

----------


## ClayTrainor

Here's a PJ quote that pretty much sums up his feelings towards the NAP, IMO. 




> *"If it wasn't for the state.... the free market would have self-destructed a thousand times over.* *It's the state that stops the monopolies that are a natural gravitation within the system.* It's the legal structure that keeps things under control - the rampant amount of corruption that's built into the system, as everyone games for strategy and the differential advantage. The socially darwinistic attribute of this system produces nothing but corruption, and *if it wasn't for state regulation and the legal system, you would have a circus of monkeys running in circles throwing feces at each other trying to steal anything and everything that they can.* THATS what the system actually is, and this 'fallback' that 'its the state' is one of the WEAKEST unsupported notions - taxation, all this crap that they throw out there has no basis on anything! *If it wasn't for the STATE, this system would have self-destructed a long, long time ago."*


Taken from his reply to Stefan.

----------


## Travlyr

I've been thinking about the Venus Project advocating a no money economy ... could it work? 

What is free?
Air is free. Clean air might cost a few bucks in electricity or equipment, but air is free.Water is free. Clean water might cost a few bucks too.Land is free. Not under the present economic system because we have to pay the bankers, but land is a birthright just like air and water.
What else is free? Conversations, companionship, beliefs, talking, listening, walking, etc. There is quite a bit of free stuff, but not everything is free. Some things require the input of resources, time, and labor. For those items, trade is good and real money constitutes a proper medium of exchange ... value for value.

What is not free?
Shelter. Good sturdy shelter requires input of resources, time and labor.Fire. Fire must be promoted and attended.Food. Raising a pig, calf, chicken, garden, etc. all take work & care.Clothes. Raising, hunting, or processing the materials for clothes takes work & care.Stuff. A lot of stuff takes work to create, build, design, form, etc.
The stuff that is not free promotes purpose in life. A purposeful life is worth living.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Here's peter joseph's response to stefan's critique of the movie.  I can only hope that this triggers a live conversation between these 2.


Peter Joseph has educated me so much in all three Zeitgeist films, and the release of the third film along with this superb response to his detractors has made me a strong believer that The Zeitgeist Movement's vision of a resource based economy is the healthy alternative to the economic and social paradigms that I previously advocated quite passionately.  As Peter says at the end, just wait and see.  I can hardly wait to be a part of a civilization where money is obsolete.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> I can hardly wait to be a part of a civilization where money is obsolete.


I agree with Stefan. Go for it, but kindly let those of us who don't want to be a part of that community opt out and go our own way. If you turn guns on us, you're no better than the parasites and thugs that run our society now.

----------


## Jeremy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project#Theory




> According to Fresco, poverty, crime, corruption and war are the result of scarcity created by the present world's profit-based economic system. He theorizes that the profit motive also stifles the progress of socially beneficial technology. Fresco claims that the progression of technology, if it were carried on independently of its profitability, would make more resources available to more people by producing an abundance of products and materials. This new-found abundance of resources would, according to Fresco, reduce the human tendency toward individualism, corruption, and greed, and instead rely on people helping each other.[7][non-primary source needed] Fresco believes it is now possible to achieve a society in which people would live "longer, healthier, and more meaningful lives." [8] Fresco believes the monetary system and the processes associated with it, such as labour and competition, damages society and holds people back from their true potentials. He states his ideas would maximally benefit the greatest number of people. He claims some of his ideas stem from his formative years during the Great Depression.[9] Fresco believes the current global economic system will have to see a major crisis before people start to lose the confidence in the monetary system and start looking for other directions.[10] Fundamental to the project is what Fresco calls a "resource-based economy". A resource-based economy utilizes existing resources - rather than money - to provide an equitable method of distribution in the most humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.[11]


Removing profit from an economy.  This is like saying if you remove the engine from a car, the car will run better.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I agree with Stefan. Go for it, but kindly let those of us who don't want to be a part of that community opt out and go our own way. If you turn guns on us, you're no better than the parasites and thugs that run our society now.


It's a global community, there won't be anymore us vs them.  The resources of the planet will be allocated by interdisciplinary teams.  TZM isn't about building a fort to hide from the system, it's about educating folks to embrace the new system.  The folks who want to hide from the resource based economy of the future will be fearing the guns of the other folks hiding from the resourced based economy, until surrender to the logic of the new paradigm is universally established.  There won't really be any way to truly escape the resource based economy anymore than there is any way to truly escape the monetary market economy in place today.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> It's a global community, there won't be anymore us vs them.  The resources of the planet will be allocated by interdisciplinary teams.  TZM isn't about building a fort to hide from the system, it's about educating folks to embrace the new system.  The folks who want to hide from the resource based economy of the future will be fearing the guns of the other folks hiding from the resourced based economy, until surrender to the logic of the new paradigm is universally established.  There won't really be any way to truly escape the resource based economy anymore than there is any way to truly escape the monetary market economy in place today.


So you're going to turn your guns on me? Well, $#@! you and the white horse you think you're riding on. If you're unwilling to let other form their own societies then you're a parasite and human slime as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## Jim Casey

> So you're going to turn your guns on me? Well, $#@! you and the white horse you think you're riding on. If you're unwilling to let other form their own societies then you're a parasite and human slime as far as I'm concerned.


I don't plan on hiding from the new resource based economy, thus I would not be living in the kind of scarcity that could provoke me or anyone else who embraces the new paradigm to revert to violence to survive.

----------


## Jeremy

> It's a global community, there won't be anymore us vs them.  The resources of the planet will be allocated by interdisciplinary teams.  TZM isn't about building a fort to hide from the system, it's about educating folks to embrace the new system.  The folks who want to hide from the resource based economy of the future will be fearing the guns of the other folks hiding from the resourced based economy, until surrender to the logic of the new paradigm is universally established.  There won't really be any way to truly escape the resource based economy anymore than there is any way to truly escape the monetary market economy in place today.




Please buy this book http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Com.../dp/0674076087

----------


## sevin

> I don't plan on hiding from the new resource based economy, thus I would not be living in the kind of scarcity that could provoke me or anyone else who embraces the new paradigm to revert to violence to survive.


You wouldn't be living in scarcity? Yeah, right. If a resource-based economy is imposed on the entire world, then the entire world will slowly starve to death. Experiments like this were tried several times in the 20th century, and they were all colossal failures.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> I don't plan on hiding from the new resource based economy, thus I would not be living in the kind of scarcity that could provoke me or anyone else who embraces the new paradigm to revert to violence to survive.


You just got through stating that I and others like me would be unable to form our own communities where we can do as we please. That means you're willing to use violence against us to make us conform to your views.

----------


## ClayTrainor

The people in the comments sections of these vids are implying that Peter will be debating Stefan on V-Radio on Monday.  If true, that should be a popcorn worthy event.

----------


## Jeremy

> The people in the comments sections of these vids are implying that Peter will be debating Stefan on V-Radio on Monday.  If true, that should be a popcorn worthy event.


Yeah, but I think it's "not a debate," but a "discussion" or something like that.  Which sometimes means it's a debate lol...

----------


## Jim Casey

> You just got through stating that I and others like me would be unable to form our own communities where we can do as we please. That means you're willing to use violence against us to make us conform to your views.


I said there will be no more us vs them.  Within the monetary market paradigm, folks are constantly using violence against others to get them conform to not only their views, but also their system of resource allocation.  In a RBE, folks will have their needs met first and their pleasures come second, analyzed by interdisciplinary teams that determine the most efficient way to allocate resources toward satisfying those pleasures.  Folks can only do what they please insofar as the resources are there to manifest those pleasures, regardless of the community they decide to develop within any economic paradigm.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> If a resource-based economy is imposed


The RBE is such an absurd term.  Has there every been an economy that isn't based on resources? lol

And saying economies are "monetery based" today is stupid.  There is a state enforced monopoly on todays money, and that is a big-big problem, but money isn't the basis of any economy, it's just a calculation system.  

Free-marketers argue that people should be free to use any resource they see value in, as money.  That's the resource based economy i want to live in.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yeah, but I think it's "not a debate," but a "discussion" or something like that.  Which sometimes means it's a debate lol...


haha yea, it's definitely going to end up as a debate.  They have been quite critical of eachothers ideas, to say the least, lol.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Please buy this book http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Com.../dp/0674076087


Any economic paradigm that is not akin to the monetary market system can easily be smeared as communist, just as any religious paradigm that is not akin to christianity can easily be smeared as satanist.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> I said there will be no more us vs them.  Within the monetary market paradigm, folks are constantly using violence against others to get them conform to not only their views, but also their system of resource allocation.  In a RBE, folks will have their needs met first and their pleasures come second, analyzed by interdisciplinary teams that determine the most efficient way to allocate resources toward satisfying those pleasures.  Folks can only do what they please insofar as the resources are there to manifest those pleasures, regardless of the community they decide to develop within any economic paradigm.


Again, you apparently do not see the cognitive dissonance manifest in your post. You're stating those like me cannot do as we wish because we will HAVE to live in YOUR 'resource-based economy' even if we don't choose to.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The RBE is such an absurd term.  Has there every been an economy that isn't based on resources? lol


Resource based economy is a catchy phrase, and could also be described as a true economy.

----------


## Jeremy

> Any economic paradigm that is not akin to the monetary market system can easily be smeared as communist, just as any religious paradigm that is not akin to christianity can easily be smeared as satanist.


Not at all.

Removing money, profit, private property, and choice.  This *IS* communism.

----------


## Travlyr

> I said there will be no more us vs them.  Within the monetary market paradigm, folks are constantly using violence against others to get them conform to not only their views, but also their system of resource allocation.  In a RBE, folks will have their needs met first and their pleasures come second, analyzed by interdisciplinary teams that determine the most efficient way to allocate resources toward satisfying those pleasures.  Folks can only do what they please insofar as the resources are there to manifest those pleasures, regardless of the community they decide to develop within any economic paradigm.


There is no scarcity. The world has such an abundance of resources that our current interdisciplinary teams refuse to let us have access to them. For example, farmers are paid to not grow crops, industrial hemp (which has numerous earth friendly uses) is illegal to grow, much of our land is off limits to drilling for oil, and people are being taught that we shouldn't eat animals. Your interdisciplinary teams can go to hell and take Agenda 21 with them.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Again, you apparently do not see the cognitive dissonance manifest in your post. You're stating those like me cannot do as we wish because we will HAVE to live in YOUR 'resource-based economy' even if we don't choose to.


We all have to live on the earth and share its resources.  We can, however, resist the monetary market paradigm.  Yet no matter how much we wish to resist it, we cannot avoid it because it is globally established.  What will happen is that folks will choose to change to a resource based economy because they wish for salvation from the scarcity that is increasingly unavoidable within the monetary market based economy.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Resource based economy is a catchy phrase, and could also be described as a true economy.


I could just as easily say that I support a resource based economy and a "true economy", and we'd both be talking about very different things.   I want an economy based on real resources, not FIAT.  I don't see a problem here.  I want an economy that is "true" whatever the $#@! thats supposed to mean, lol.

Those are useless terms, and i think you're right about RBE being a "catchy" term.  It's a clever marketing ploy, not much more.

The real thing that Zeitgeisters seem to be advocating is Central Planning, and the abolition of private property ownership and free-markets.  Do you think this is fair to say?  Why or why not?

----------


## Jeremy

> I could just as easily say that I support a resource based economy and a "true economy", and we'd both be talking about very different things.   I want an economy based on real resources, not FIAT.  I don't see a problem here.  I want an economy that is "true" whatever the $#@! thats supposed to mean, lol.
> 
> Those are useless terms, and i think you're right about RBE being a "catchy" term.  It's a clever marketing ploy, not much more.
> 
> The real thing that Zeitgeisters seem to be advocating is Central Planning, and the abolition of private property ownership and free-markets.  Do you think this is fair to say?  Why or why not?


Yeah.  All economies are resource based.  What they call "resource based" means without money.  I guess if you're a cow farmer and you need some copper, you're only allowed to pay for it with cows?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Not at all.
> 
> Removing money, profit, private property, and choice.  This *IS* communism.


Similar fundamentals do not equate to exact same philosophy.  A free market is not the same as a monetary market anymore than communism is the same as what TZM proposes. 



> There is no scarcity. The world has such an abundance of resources that our current interdisciplinary teams refuse to let us have access to them. For example, farmers are paid to not grow crops, industrial hemp (which has numerous earth friendly uses) is illegal to grow, much of our land is off limits to drilling for oil, and people are being taught that we shouldn't eat animals. Your interdisciplinary teams can go to hell and take Agenda 21 with them.


Contrived scarcity is essential to the monetary market system which requires cyclical growth to pay off increasing debt.  The monetary market system is going to be replaced to allow access abundance, not just abundance for some.  The question is how soon will that happen and how smoothly will the transition to a RBE occur.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> We all have to live on the earth and share its resources.  We can, however, resist the monetary market paradigm.  Yet no matter how much we wish to resist it, we cannot avoid it because it is globally established.  What will happen is that folks will choose to change to a resource based economy because they wish for salvation from the scarcity that is increasingly unavoidable within the monetary market based economy.


I'm sorry, but we're talking past one another. Whatever. You go have your 'resource based economy'. Leave me the hell alone and let other Anarcho-Capitalists like me live as we wish. If you don't like that we own property and use real money, suck it up and mind your own business or attack us. Your choice.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yeah.  All economies are resource based.  What they call "resource based" means without money.  I guess if you're a cow farmer and you need some copper, you're only allowed to pay for it with cows?


Whenever you bring this type of thing up with Zeitgeisters, they usually say $#@! like...

"Why would anyone have a need to trade, when they can get everything they want for free from our automated system?"

When you bring up Mises' Calculation problem, they basically say some long-winded version of...

"Computers will solve it".

Totally useless answers.  This has been my experience with them so far.  I've had a lot of conversations with them on other boards, since Moving forward came out, and I can only assume that nearly all of them have absolutely no interest in economics whatsoever.  They criticize economics non-stop, but they don't even take the time to understand the very basics of what they're criticizing.  It's embarrassing.

----------


## Jeremy

> Similar fundamentals do not equate to exact same philosophy.  A free market is not the same as a monetary market anymore than communism is the same as what TZM proposes. 
> 
> Contrived scarcity is essential to the monetary market system which requires cyclical growth to pay off increasing debt.  The monetary market system is going to be replaced to allow access abundance, not just abundance for some.  The question is how soon will that happen and how smoothly will the transition to a RBE occur.


So why don't you point out the major differences between communism and what you propose?  Communism is a dirty label.  You are obviously trying to avoid it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Contrived scarcity is essential to the monetary market system which requires cyclical growth to pay off increasing debt.  The monetary market system is going to be replaced to allow access abundance, not just abundance for some.  The question is how soon will that happen and how smoothly will the transition to a RBE occur.


No it is not. You don't know your enemy. Here is your enemy, friend:

The Globalist plan
Submitted by Bezerker on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 09:13.

This is how they are to throw as many people out in the Street hungry as they can. Has everyone read "The Bankers Manifesto" before ? Does everyone understand HJR-192 signed June 5, 1933 ? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (corporation formed Feb. 1871 in London) has been operating in Bankruptcy since 1933. The Receivership of the Bankruptcy in 1933 was listed as the I.M.F. and THE UNITED NATIONS. The funny part about the whole thing is these two lovely organizations were not formed until Oct. 1945 showing how W.W.2 was a stage job with the final goal of creating these world Cancers. Everything we have known as "History" was actually planned by a small group of elite to further their ultimate goal of The New World Order. Novas Ordo Seclorum.

http://dailypaul.com/156169/fleckens...omment-1649995

----------


## Jim Casey

> The real thing that Zeitgeisters seem to be advocating is Central Planning, and the abolition of private property ownership and free-markets.  Do you think this is fair to say?  Why or why not?


There are no central planners making decisions.  Decisions are arrived at scientifically by interdisciplinary teams.  Access abundance for the needs and wants of everyone will trump the planning of opportunists looking to profit off of contrived scarcity and desires. 

Phrases like "central planning" and labels like "communist" or "Marxist" are thrown out at those who don't value the stratified society that cherished beliefs about private property ownership and free markets manifest.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> There are no *central planners* making decisions.  Decisions are arrived at scientifically by *interdisciplinary teams.*


You say that there are no central planners, yet decisions for ALL OF THE WORLDS RESOURCES will be arrived at by some sort of "teams"????

How are they not central planners?  Please explain this to me.




> Phrases like "central planning" and labels like "communist" or "Marxist" are thrown out at those who don't value the stratified society that* cherished beliefs about private property ownership* and free markets manifest.


"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: *Abolish all private property.*" - Marx

 Adding robots, computers and "interdisciplinary teams." changes nothing about the economic principles of what you're advocating.  Explain to me how you are not advocating some kind of new-age flavor of marxism?

----------


## demolama

Still doesn't change the fact someone has to build and fail at building these robots.  Which means they will be allocated more resources than others.  A "special" citizenry for those working for the "state"  doesn't sound too far different than what we have today with crony capitalism or communism

----------


## Jim Casey

> Whenever you bring this type of thing up with Zeitgeisters, they usually say $#@! like...
> 
> "Why would anyone have a need to trade, when they can get everything they want for free from our automated system?"
> 
> When you bring up Mises' Calculation problem, they basically say some long-winded version of...
> 
> "Computers will solve it".
> 
> Totally useless answers.  This has been my experience with them so far.  I've had a lot of conversations with them on other boards, since Moving forward came out, and I can only assume that nearly all of them have absolutely no interest in economics whatsoever.  They criticize economics non-stop, but they don't even take the time to understand the very basics of what they're criticizing.  It's embarrassing.


I didn't embrace TZM quite as strongly as I do now, because I still believed strongly that you can't beat a free market economy.  ZMF was exactly the film I needed to convince me otherwise.  With over 2 million youtube views in 11 days despite youtube's attempts to hide it, ZMF is very appealing.  I highly doubt a 160 minute video touting the benefits of a free market economy would be able to compete with that.  ZMF has an educational message that people really like hearing.  ZMF is an economics lesson I'll never forget.

----------


## ClayTrainor

It's going to be very interesting to see how Peter Joseph responds to Stefan's criticisms in a live format.  I'm predicting Peter is going to respond with a lot of frustration stemming from cognitive dissonance, when Stefan comes at him with some hard-hitting questions on things like the Economic Calculation problem.

----------


## Sentient Void

Absolutely. 

Even an extremely powerful supercomputer would not be able to allocate finite resources anywhere near as efficiently and effectively as the free market - due to coordination and information problems.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I didn't embrace TZM quite as strongly as I do now, because I still believed strongly that you can't beat a free market economy.  ZMF was exactly the film I needed to convince me otherwise.  With over 2 million youtube views in 11 days despite youtube's attempts to hide it, ZMF is very appealing.  I highly doubt a 160 minute video touting the benefits of a free market economy would be able to compete with that.  ZMF has an educational message that people really like hearing.  ZMF is an economics lesson I'll never forget.


Sounds like you found your new faith.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You say that there are no central planners, yet decisions for ALL OF THE WORLDS RESOURCES will be arrived at by some sort of "teams"????
> 
> How are they not central planners?  Please explain this to me.
> 
> 
> 
> "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: *Abolish all private property.*" - Marx
> 
>  Adding robots, computers and "interdisciplinary teams." changes nothing about the economic principles of what you're advocating.  Explain to me how you are not advocating some kind of new-age flavor of marxism?


The difference is applied science, which Marxism and central planning are devoid off.  Adding robots and computers isn't the difference, it's applying the scientific method to arrive at decisions that makes the difference.  Robots and computers are tools.

----------


## sevin

> I didn't embrace TZM quite as strongly as I do now, because I still believed strongly that you can't beat a free market economy.  ZMF was exactly the film I needed to convince me otherwise.  With over 2 million youtube views in 11 days despite youtube's attempts to hide it, ZMF is very appealing.  I highly doubt a 160 minute video touting the benefits of a free market economy would be able to compete with that.  ZMF has an educational message that people really like hearing.  ZMF is an economics lesson I'll never forget.


Okay, after reading this, I can see it's useless to debate you. You've made up your mind already. In the future, try not to let documentaries reel you in emotionally and instead use your critical thinking skills to draw your own conclusions. Also, learn a little about economics before promoting new economic systems.

----------


## silverhandorder

> The difference is applied science, which Marxism and central planning are devoid off.  Adding robots and computers isn't the difference, it's applying the scientific method to arrive at decisions that makes the difference.  Robots and computers are tools.


Sorry to burst your bubble but Marx claimed to be scientific too.

----------


## Jim Casey

> It's going to be very interesting to see how Peter Joseph responds to Stefan's criticisms in a live format.  I'm predicting Peter is going to respond with a lot of frustration stemming from cognitive dissonance, when Stefan comes at him with some hard-hitting questions on things like the Economic Calculation problem.


He does a very good job explaining how those "hard-hitting questions" aren't relevant because of the false assumptions of freedom that the monetary market paradigm establishes.  Freedom never trumps survival, no matter how romanticized.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The difference is applied science, which Marxism and central planning are devoid off.


It sounds like central planning "with science", but really, you're ignoring economic science and pretending you have something new.  

"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." - Rothbard




> Adding robots and computers isn't the difference, it's applying the scientific method to arrive at decisions that makes the difference.  Robots and computers are tools.


Applying the scientific method to making what decisions?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Sorry to burst your bubble but Marx claimed to be scientific too.


"Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science. " - Marx

----------


## ClayTrainor

It's funny how these Zeitgeisters constantly go on about the scientific method with their unproven "Venus Project" and "resource based economy".

Can they please demonstrate The Venus project in a small city or something, before they demand the resources of the world?  Stop bastardizing science, and start applying the scientific method to your own ideas.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Okay, after reading this, I can see it's useless to debate you. You've made up your mind already. In the future, try not to let documentaries reel you in emotionally and instead use your critical thinking skills to draw your own conclusions. Also, learn a little about economics before promoting new economic systems.


I've read quite a bit from the perspective of Mises and Ron Paul regarding economics, but my enthusiasm for learning any more about that paradigm has been shattered by the logic of Peter Joseph.  I'm not going to be reeled in so easily by the lure of assumed freedom and abundance for limited individuals because while that philosophy was great for its time, it's rapidly becoming obsolete as the labor for wages deal is increasingly being replaced with automation.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> *I've read quite a bit from the perspective of Mises and Ron Paul regarding economics,* but my enthusiasm for learning any more about that paradigm has been shattered by the logic of Peter Joseph.


Somehow, I doubt it.

Explain to me how you plan on solving the Economic Calculation Problem, and don't just cop-out by saying something about technology, computers, science, automation, robots, etc..  That will only imply that you don't understand the problem and can't solve it.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Applying the scientific method to making what decisions?


How to best use the earth's resources efficiently so that access abundance results.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> How to best use* the earth's resources* efficiently so that access abundance results.


So, a central plan for all of the earths resources?

Will it be people making these final decisions?  Which people?  And how will they calculate difference of opinion.  Let's say some people want Mac computers, and other people want Windows... who will make the decisions as to what ones get produced more?

----------


## Wren

> The people in the comments sections of these vids are implying that Peter will be debating Stefan on V-Radio on Monday.  If true, that should be a popcorn worthy event.


I have a feeling that it isn't peter, but we'll see. It might be the owner of V-radio, who is also the Official Spokesman for the Venus Project, who could be debating stef

----------


## Jim Casey

> Somehow, I doubt it.
> 
> Explain to me how you plan on solving the Economic Calculation Problem, and don't just say technology, science, automation and/or robots.  That will only imply that you don't understand the problem.


The problem involves pricing.  With no money, there is no pricing.  There are scientific systems to manage resources that don't involve pricing.  These systems would do the work.  

If you want to understand the system, imagine everybody just arrived on planet earth.  Make long term survival the goal and efficient distribution of resources the means.  Survey the earth, enter the data in the system, and arrive at the production plan.  Optimize as new data is acquired regarding human needs and wants and resources available on the planet.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The problem involves pricing.  With no money, there is no pricing.  There are scientific systems to manage resources that don't involve pricing.  These systems would do the work.


What are these systems?  Systems of people? Systems of computers?  

How do you calculate for machine-time, human labor-time, which resources are best to use, what projects will be wasteful?

Science can build rockets to the moon. Lets say 100,000 people want one of their own, to start colonizing the moon. How does TZM calculate whether this is rational or not? What if there are multiple designs for spaceships, and some people prefer different ones, how do you choose which one is best? How do they calculate whether or not the human-labor time, scientific resarch time, resources available, etc.  would be better spent producing other things?

What kind of signals will guide the production of products and services, and solve the calculation problem?




> If you want to understand the system, imagine everybody just arrived on planet earth.  Make long term survival the goal and efficient distribution of resources the means.  Survey the earth, enter the data in the system, and arrive at the production plan.  Optimize as new data is acquired regarding human needs and wants and resources available on the planet.


What you've just described is central planning for all of the earths resources.  How can you deny this?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I have a feeling that it isn't peter, but we'll see. It might be the owner of V-radio, who is also the Official Spokesman for the Venus Project, who could be debating stef


Yea, Peter has nothing to gain from such an interaction, and everything to loose.  It's not in his interests to converse Stefan live, lol, he'd be logically cornered soooooooo fast.

----------


## demolama

Basically we're all going to be stuck with pvc pipes instead of copper because someone else has better use of my copper allotment.  What horse $#@!.

----------


## Jim Casey

> What are these systems?  Systems of people? Systems of computers?  
> 
> How is this not central planning?
> 
> 
> 
> What you've just described is central planning.  How can you deny this?


There is planning in any economy.  Using scientific computer systems applied by interdisciplinary teams to arrive at the plans does not equate to what is described as the central planning that monetary market advocates denounce.  Central planning, just like Marxism and communism, are the terms that are used by monetary market advocates to scare people into believing they need money to have freedom and abundance.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Basically we're all going to be stuck with pvc pipes instead of copper because someone else has better use of my copper allotment.  What horse $#@!.


Some folks may also express dismay if their desire for a solid gold toilet seat fails to manifest because those resources won't be diverted from innovation development.

----------


## demolama

there are no benefits to a gold toilet.. however,  copper pipes v pvc pipes for certain things have pros and cons

----------


## ClayTrainor

> There is planning in any economy.


Should I be allowed to plan for myself and my own property, or do you have a better plan for me and my property? 




> Using scientific computer systems applied by interdisciplinary teams to arrive at the plans does not equate to what is described as the central planning that monetary market advocates denounce. Central planning, just like Marxism and communism, are the terms that are used by monetary market advocates to scare people into believing they need money to have freedom and abundance.


Don't just say it doesn't... *explain the reason* why it is not central planning.  You want special "teams" of people, and "computers" to manage and distribute ALL OF THE EARTHS RESOURCES.   How is this not central planning?

Don't just tell me i'm wrong, demonstrate it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Some folks may also express dismay if their desire for a solid gold toilet seat fails to manifest because those resources won't be diverted from innovation development.


Jim Casey, you do understand that property rights are fundamental to liberty, right? Without property people live in tyranny. There is no escaping that fundamental principle. What you advocate is tyranny, not liberty.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Jim Casey, you do understand that property rights are fundamental to liberty, right? Without property people live in tyranny. There is no escaping that fundamental principle. What you advocate is tyranny, not liberty.


It's funny how they try to pretend they're not marxists, but they advocate getting rid of the concept of private property.  They say it's different because we have new technology, lol, but that changes nothing.

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property" - Karl Marx

It's not my opinion, it's Marx's, lol.

----------


## EndDaFed

> Jim Casey, you do understand that property rights are fundamental to liberty, right? Without property people live in tyranny. There is no escaping that fundamental principle. What you advocate is tyranny, not liberty.


And property rights in an anarcho capitalist society can't create tyranny right? So if a small group of people own the vast majority of land and people are starving because they have become obsolete due to technology. If they decide to use some of that land to grow their own food then it would be a moral good for the property owner to kill them or remove them from the land. That is liberty?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jim Casey, you do understand that property rights are fundamental to liberty, right? Without property people live in tyranny. There is no escaping that fundamental principle. What you advocate is tyranny, not liberty.


Our freedom is limited by our access to resources.  Private property rights strictly restrict access to resources to limited individuals.  There is no escaping that tyrannical aspect of private property rights.  Advocating the stratification of society that results from private property rights is scientifically proven to increase the amount of violence within that society.  The more equal the society, the less violent and mentally ill.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's funny how they try to pretend they're not marxists, but they advocate getting rid of the concept of private property.  They say it's different because we have new technology, lol, but that changes nothing.
> 
> "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property" - Karl Marx
> 
> It's not my opinion, it's Marx's, lol.


So true. I wish it were funny. The Zeitgeist Movement is growing by leaps and bounds because most people do not understand the fundamentals. It is sad.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And property rights in an anarcho capitalist society can't create tyranny right?


 If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. - Ozarkia.net




> So if a small group of people own the vast majority of land and people are starving because they have become obsolete due to technology.


Do you think this is likely to happen through voluntary trade and free-markets, without a coercive monopoly on force?




> If they decide to use some of that land to grow their own food then it would be a moral good for the property owner to kill them or remove them from the land. That is liberty?



That's quite a Straw man.  If someone comes onto your property, with the intent to take your property (car, food, whatever)  without your permission... do you let them?  

 It's not okay to just kill people, unless they were a violent threat to you, but yes, you do have the right to remove people from your property if you legitimately acquired it  without coercion.

It's reasonable to say that acts of aggression can be met with equal force, to stop the aggression.  It's not reasonable, for example, to start shooting trick or treaters because they didn't see the "no trespassing" sign.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> So true. I wish it were funny. The Zeitgeist Movement is growing by leaps and bounds because most people do not understand the fundamentals. It is sad.


I think it's important to encourage them to tune into Stefans conversation with them on Monday.  Some of them will begin to ask the right questions, I'm sure.

----------


## Travlyr

> Our freedom is limited by our access to resources.  Private property rights strictly restrict access to resources to limited individuals.  There is no escaping that tyrannical aspect of private property rights.  Advocating the stratification of society that results from private property rights is scientifically proven to increase the amount of violence within that society.  The more equal the society, the less violent and mentally ill.


Draw the line fella. My underwear is my private property and I'm not sharing. Where do you draw the property line? I draw mine with land boundaries and personal property ownership rights... hopefully 40+ acres with mineral and water rights attached ... someday.

----------


## Jim Casey

> there are no benefits to a gold toilet.. however,  copper pipes v pvc pipes for certain things have pros and cons


Such data would be entered in the system to determine the decision.  Once innovation is no longer stifled by the monetary market system, even better pipes may come along down the pipeline in a RBE.

----------


## EndDaFed

> That's quite a Straw man.  If someone comes onto your property, with the intent to take your property (car, food, whatever)  without your permission... do you let them?  
> 
>  It's not okay to just kill people, unless they were a violent threat to you, but yes, you do have the right to remove people from your property if you legitimately acquired it  without coercion.


If someone is not free to produce their own food with their own labor because all the land is owned and they are no longer economically relevant. How is that freedom? The only thing that is stopping people now from buying up large swaths of land is property taxes.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Such data would be entered in the system to determine the decision. Once innovation is no longer stifled by the monetary market system, even better pipes may come along down the pipeline in a RBE.


These folks blame everything on markets, and and virtually never hold the state responsible as the source of any criminal activity or waste of resources.  They sometimes say they do, when questioned, but they never seem to voluntarily argue against the state until someone else brings it up.  They always blame the market.

For example....




> *"If it wasn't for the state.... the free market would have self-destructed a thousand times over.* *It's the state that stops the monopolies that are a natural gravitation within the system.* It's the legal structure that keeps things under control - the rampant amount of corruption that's built into the system, as everyone games for strategy and the differential advantage. The socially darwinistic attribute of this system produces nothing but corruption, and *if it wasn't for state regulation and the legal system, you would have a circus of monkeys running in circles throwing feces at each other trying to steal anything and everything that they can.* THATS what the system actually is, and this 'fallback' that 'its the state' is one of the WEAKEST unsupported notions - taxation, all this crap that they throw out there has no basis on anything! *If it wasn't for the STATE, this system would have self-destructed a long, long time ago."*

----------


## silverhandorder

> And property rights in an anarcho capitalist society can't create tyranny right? So if a small group of people own the vast majority of land and people are starving because they have become obsolete due to technology. If they decide to use some of that land to grow their own food then it would be a moral good for the property owner to kill them or remove them from the land. That is liberty?


This is a starwman. In your communist utopia things can go wrong too. I know I would rather take my chances in a free market then in some place where the central comitee already owns everyting. 

The question is are you willing to attack me for my beliefs.

Edit: I am on smart phone so I appologize for any spelling mistakes.

----------


## Travlyr

> And property rights in an anarcho capitalist society can't create tyranny right? So if a small group of people own the vast majority of land and people are starving because they have become obsolete due to technology. If they decide to use some of that land to grow their own food then it would be a moral good for the property owner to kill them or remove them from the land. That is liberty?


First of all I do not advocate anarcho-capitalism. Secondly, I do advocate land, air, and water rights as birthrights. I do not advocate violence. 

You should read what Ron Paul writes if you don't understand liberty.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> If someone is not free to produce their own food with their own labor because all the land is owned and they are no longer economically relevant. How is that freedom?


Firstly, you didn't answer my question.  Why not?  If you're not going to answer my questions, This isn't a conversation that will be worth my time.

Secondly, So is it your position that human beings will not care about others, unless a state forces them too?  There will be no charity, no helping of others, if the state doesn't make us?




> The only thing that is stopping people now from buying up large swaths of land is property taxes.


I'm not sure I follow the logic of this... are you basically saying that the only thing stopping me from selling my land to someone else, is property taxes?  That doesn't make sense to me, can you elaborate?

----------


## ClayTrainor

edit... eh nevermind... not worth getting into.

----------


## silverhandorder

I think he is trying to say that property taxes limit how much land an individual can afford. Which sounds weird to me since if you examine how government managed land it is clear that it favors large property holders.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I think he is trying to say that property taxes limit how much land an individual can afford. Which sounds weird to me since if you examine how government managed land it is clear that it favors large property holders.


Right...  Look at all the rich people benefiting from things that taxes are used for.  Get rid of the tax structure, and it will be the average joe who is likely to have increased purchasing power.

One effect of eliminating property taxes, would be lower rent prices, and poor people could have more excess capital for essentials like food.

----------


## hugolp

> If someone is not free to produce their own food with their own labor because all the land is owned and they are no longer economically relevant. How is that freedom? The only thing that is stopping people now from buying up large swaths of land is property taxes.


Do you know that the biggest owners of lands have all that land thanks to the government? The market never leads to concentration of resources in a few hands. The government always does. So basically you are advocating for the system that has concentrated the resources in a few hands.

----------


## Travlyr

> I've seen you make similar arguments to EndDaFed, in regards to people not wanting to help others without "taxation" and/or the "state".  Do you think this is fair of me to say?


I don't really understand your question. I do believe that taxation has never been avoided ... ever, so far. I imagine that even in hunter/gatherer days that a hunter who did not bring back his kill to share was reprimanded ... somehow.

I believe that someday ... far into the future ... after my days have passed ... that Statelessness and Anarcho-Capitalism may be destiny. Ending the United States, each of the 50 States, each county in each of those 50 states, each township in each of those counties, and each city charter in each of those townships is impractical ... especially because land deeds are currently held as public records in county seats.

I do not expect to see a viable anarchy, so I advocate for a social contract which spells out property rights, natural rights, and a method of justice using laissez-faire free-market capitalism and taxation not on property, but taxation much like tariffs where there is no punishment for avoiding paying them for those who figure out how.

Like Benjamin Franklin stated, "there are two certainties in life, death and taxes." Future generations may prove him wrong, but the present generations likely will not.

----------


## silverhandorder

Trav imagine that we reached a minarchist society. Now imagine a significant segment wants to be free of what little government there is. Do you think a limited government would declare war or simply try to coexist with this segment. I believe that at that point coexistance is possible.

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav imagine that we reached a minarchist society. Now imagine a significant segment wants to be free of what little government there is. Do you think a limited government would declare war or simply try to coexist with this segment. I believe that at that point coexistance is possible.


I agree.

----------


## EndDaFed

> I think he is trying to say that property taxes limit how much land an individual can afford. Which sounds weird to me since if you examine how government managed land it is clear that it favors large property holders.


I guess I can see a market mechanism that would tapper that. For example a DRO would more than likely charge more money for protecting larger sections of land. I guess that would in a way make land a liability in the same way that property taxes do today.

----------


## ClayTrainor

This thread is putting a smile on my face. 

Thanks for your response, Travlyr, and thanks to Silver Hand for responding to it far better than I would've.

----------


## Wesker1982

> because all the land is owned


How would this be possible? 




> The only thing that is stopping people now from buying up large swaths of land is property taxes.


How do you buy something unowned?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How would this be possible?


Among other things, homesteading.  I don't have time for a complete answer now, but hopefully someone else will answer in more detail.

----------


## Jeremy

> There is planning in any economy.  Using scientific computer systems applied by interdisciplinary teams to arrive at the plans does not equate to what is described as the central planning that monetary market advocates denounce.  Central planning, just like Marxism and communism, are the terms that are used by monetary market advocates to scare people into believing they need money to have freedom and abundance.


 So you think a computer can plan for millions (billions?) of individuals and somehow know what is in each of their best interests?

----------


## Wesker1982

I didn't see this posted anywhere:




and

http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/for...13.aspx#226113

This is good too:




and maybe some Mises

_Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth_: http://mises.org/econcalc.asp , nice and short

*Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis*: http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

----------


## Jeremy

> Absolutely. 
> 
> Even an extremely powerful supercomputer would not be able to allocate finite resources anywhere near as efficiently and effectively as the free market - due to coordination and information problems.


A computer also can't read the mind of a person, let alone millions of people.

----------


## hugolp

> A computer also can't read the mind of a person, let alone millions of people.


The best way for someone to realize how stupid is the computer thingy is to learn to program. Then they would realize a computer is just a tool that can do basic math operations really quick. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Among other things, homesteading.


lol I know, I just don't think _all_ the land would be likely to be homesteaded.

----------


## Jeremy

> The best way for someone to realize how stupid is the computer thingy is to learn to program. Then they would realize a computer is just a tool that can do basic math operations really quick. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.


And isn't Setefan a programmer or something?  He must have been LOLing...

I am also a programmer.

----------


## hugolp

> And isn't Setefan a programmer or something?  He must have been LOLing...
> 
> I am also a programmer.


I have read somewhere that programmers and engineers are libertarian in bigger percentage than ohter proffession. The reason they gave its because these proffesions require people with strong logic capabilities. I guess its impossible to really know the reason but its curious.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I have read somewhere that programmers and engineers are libertarian in bigger percentage than ohter proffession. The reason they gave its because these proffesions require people with strong logic capabilities. I guess its impossible to really know the reason but its curious.


It would make sense.  Computer Programming is all about logic, and working from first principles.  I just can't imagine a decent computer programmer taking a serious look at the economic calculation problem, and making the claim that he can solve it with a computer program and "science", lol.

Programmers *should* have a tendency to understand that theories and ideas need to be built and tested before they are validated, or else they probably aren't very good programmers.


Another thing that might lead to more programmers being libertarian,  is that programming is a job that is mostly market-oriented.  Programmers are constantly writing new software to appeal to market demand, and probably gain a better understanding of how markets function through this.

Compare this to science, which is also based on logic, but is also heavily driven by state subsidies.  Most big players in science are also big statists.

----------


## sevin

One of the main reasons the zeitgeist movement is growing so quickly is because its members don't understand austrian economics. They're right to be angry about the current system, to complain about central banks and fiat money.

But what they don't understand is that a utopia could be achieved if we had a truly free market with competing currencies. In a totally free society without government intervention and oppression, poverty would become a thing of the past. 

This new movement is seeming more and more like a cult in that they're very emotionally invested in the idea and rational arguments go right over their heads. Someone needs to make a documentary about laissez-faire capitalism's potential that's as compelling as Zeitgeist.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> One of the main reasons the zeitgeist movement is growing so quickly is because its members don't understand austrian economics. They're right to be angry about the current system, to complain about central banks and fiat money.
> 
> But what they don't understand is that a utopia could be achieved if we had a truly free market with competing currencies. In a totally free society without government intervention and oppression, poverty would become a thing of the past. 
> 
> This new movement is seeming more and more like a cult in that they're very emotionally invested in the idea and rational arguments go right over their heads. Someone needs to make a documentary about laissez-faire capitalism's potential that's as compelling as Zeitgeist.


Definitely.  It'd be great to see the production values of Zeitgeist thrown into a movie centered around ideas found in Austrian economics, libertarianism, non-aggression princple, etc.

If there was a decent team willing to take on the project, I bet we could finance it through donations.

----------


## Sentient Void

> I have read somewhere that programmers and engineers are libertarian in bigger percentage than ohter proffession. The reason they gave its because these proffesions require people with strong logic capabilities. I guess its impossible to really know the reason but its curious.


I've actually never heard this - but it makes sense, I'll have to see if I can find such a study, poll, etc.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I've actually never heard this - but it makes sense, I'll have to see if I can find such a study, poll, etc.


It was pretty surprising to see how Ron Paul dominated the webbernets compared to other candidates, but still did very poorly at the polls.  This would help explain that.

Be sure to post any sources you find that back this up.

----------


## Sentient Void

> It was pretty surprising to see how Ron Paul dominated the webbernets compared to other candidates, but still did very poorly at the polls.  This would help explain that.
> 
> Be sure to post any sources you find that back this up.


As a heads-up - I'm actually an IT Technician.

Being someone who has read much on austrian economics, and am *very* familiar with how computer software and hardware functions... I can confidently say, a centrally-planning computer, however powerful/'fast' - will *not* be able to solve the coordination, information, and calculation problems that *any* form of central planning results in.

Not to mention that such a computer would have to be literally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent of all situations in all places at all times between all individuals (and in a sense, 'within' all individuals). This computer would have to be both programmed and maintained by human beings - an 'elite' and ultimately privileged class - that are corruptible, imperfect and fallible. This can lead to disastrous consequences under such an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent computer trying to coordinate and calculate where all resources should go and when, especially according to the subjective demands of individuals.

The alternative to the elite 'programmers' and 'maintainers' of this computer, which would ultimately be oppressive, corrupt and a miserable economic failure, is however further into the future, giving these responsibilities (of maintenance and programming) over to a *true* AI. However, while it may be able to constantly program/update itself software wise, and perhaps even fix and update itself hardware wise (through controlled machines), it would still have serious trouble with the coordination/information/calculation problems. 

Honestly, The only way I could possibly fathom any such system ever working within an environment of *finite resources* is if this true AI was not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *generally speaking*, but if this true AI also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *within* every individual (in order to tackle the legitimate coordination/calculation/information problem according to the demands of individuals). Meaning every individual would literally need to have cybernetic hardware/software hardwired/connected into their brains, with some sort of wireless connection (to ensure 'free' mobility, I put 'free' in quotes because of the potential loss of freedom involved in being part pf such a system) to the central true AI. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this legitimately alludes to some sort of hivemind Borg-like techno-collective. This, to me, seems to be the only way such a system that Peter Joseph is envisioning could even *possibly* function efficiently and effectively.

If I'm correct, honestly - as I still speak on the behalf of my subjective and individual mind, I really would *not* want to be part of such a system. But I speak for myself - others may very well prefer to be part of it. If so, then that's their choice.

Who knows if such a system might be able to refrain from violating the NAP (in regards to those who choose to be free individuals) based on resource needs of this entire techno-collective. Will 'it' (I say 'it', because it would be questionable if you could call this techno-collective any longer a group of individuals anymore or one legitimate entity) remain peaceful, or might they claim that 'resistance is futile'?

Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?

I'm completely serious.

----------


## emazur

"John Stuart Mill critiques government, Zeitgeist Movement"


On the subject of competition, something the Zeitgeist Movement vehemently
opposes, Mill said to the socialists and utopians of his day: "Wherever
competition is not, monopoly is. Monopoly in all its forms is taxation
of the industrious for the support of indulgence, if not of plunder. It
is a common error of socialists to overlook the natural indulgence of
mankind - their tendencies to be passive, to be slaves of habit; to
persist indefinitely in a course once chosen. Competition may not be
the best conceivable stimulus but it is at present a necessary one and
no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to
progress... Every restriction of competition is an evil... To be
protected against competition is to be protected in idleness, in mental
dullness; to be saved the necessity of being as active and intelligent
as other people" (this reminds me of the effects from a severe lack of
competition that comes from the presence of government schools).

----------


## hugolp

> I've actually never heard this - but it makes sense, I'll have to see if I can find such a study, poll, etc.





> It was pretty surprising to see how Ron Paul dominated the webbernets compared to other candidates, but still did very poorly at the polls.  This would help explain that.
> 
> Be sure to post any sources you find that back this up.


There you go: http://ivo.co.za/2007/08/09/libertarian-iq/ (its a repost and the link to the original source seems broken).




> Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?
> 
> I'm completely serious.


Absolutely, count me in. The sad thing is they dont realize they would be poor and miserable borgs.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Absolutely, count me in. The sad thing is they dont realize they would be poor and miserable borgs.


Many folks who have embraced TZM have realized that the highly stratified social structure that is the result of a monetary market system is the cause of the misery in society.   America has produced more serial killers than the rest of the world combined and has 30-300 times more acts of violence.  Societies with more economic equality have less violence and misery.

----------


## hugolp

> Many folks who have embraced TZM have realized that the highly stratified social structure that is the result of a monetary market system is the cause of the misery in society.   America has produced more serial killers than the rest of the world combined and has 30-300 times more acts of violence.  Societies with more economic equality have less violence and misery.


See, this is the typical fallacy. Do you realize I am not defending the present system? The present system is a government controlled market, a socialdemocracy. And yes, its criminal. We agree on that. You can keep trying to blame the problems of the present system on what we defend but its wrong. We are not defending the present system. Do you want me to say it again? We dont defend the present system.

If you need to keep using the disgraces of the present system as an excuse to refuse any logical debate its not our problem and you are only harming yourself.

----------


## __27__

> Peter Joseph has educated me so much in all three Zeitgeist films, and the release of the third film along with this superb response to his detractors has made me a strong believer that The Zeitgeist Movement's vision of a resource based economy is the healthy alternative to the economic and social paradigms that I previously advocated quite passionately.  As Peter says at the end, just wait and see.  I can hardly wait to be a part of a civilization where money is obsolete.


This 'superb response'??  You can't be serious.  Are you sure you're not drinking Jim Jones' Kool Aid?  Peter did little more than mock, dodge and deny in that response.  "Just wait and see..." is not an intelligent response.  For a movement who claims to live and die by science, all the previously held understandings of the scientific method and peer review seem to go right out the window when it is your own theories that are questioned.

Money is not obsolete in TVP, and it never can be.  It is simply displaced and represented differently than what you previously understood it as.  Just as in prison, where cigarettes take the place of currency, so to any other commodity will replace currency in TVP.  You cannot simply will something out of existence, no matter how much you may like it to be.  

And of course this doesn't even touch on the glaring flaws even someone with the most basic understanding of economics can see in a RBE.  Unless you have found an infinite supply of resources, RBE will never be anything more than a centrally planned economy enforced with the initiation of violence.  Resources are finite, plain and simple.  You cannot distribute finite resources without some system of control, you either allow for money and the market, or you must centrally decide arbitrarily what is and what is not acceptable, and then back up your decision with force.

The future of freedom is NOT more initiation of force.  The future of freedom is NOT more central planning.  The future of freedom is NOT TVP.

That said I do appreciate Peter and his passion for ending the oppression of the current system of the world.  Vibrant and open discourse is the only thing that can move us forward, and I hope that Peter continues with his work.  I only hope that he is as open to the marketplace of ideas as I am, just as central controlling of an economy will NEVER work, neither will proclaiming one idea as right and perfect and burying your head in the sand.

----------


## __27__

> I didn't embrace TZM quite as strongly as I do now, because I still believed strongly that you can't beat a free market economy.  ZMF was exactly the film I needed to convince me otherwise.  With over 2 million youtube views in 11 days despite youtube's attempts to hide it, ZMF is very appealing.  I highly doubt a 160 minute video touting the benefits of a free market economy would be able to compete with that.  ZMF has an educational message that people really like hearing.  *ZMF is an economics lesson I'll never forget.*


Oh gawd, this is priceless.  ZMF is an _economics lesson_ like 'Reefer Madness' is a medical lesson.

"War is peace!"

"Slavery is freedom!"

----------


## Sentient Void

> Many folks who have embraced TZM have realized that the highly stratified social structure that is the result of a monetary market system is the cause of the misery in society.   America has produced more serial killers than the rest of the world combined and has 30-300 times more acts of violence.  Societies with more economic equality have less violence and misery.


Would you like some fire with your strawman?

+1 hugolp

----------


## __27__

> The difference is applied science, which Marxism and central planning are devoid off.  Adding robots and computers isn't the difference, it's applying the scientific method to arrive at decisions that makes the difference.  Robots and computers are tools.


Hey genius, the free market *IS* the scientific method.  The entire driving force behind the market, which is the very baseline of existence, is the marketplace of ideas.  It doesn't matter how big you want to make your 'central planning *teams*', so long as they contain one less person than the total human population they are inferior to the market, as the market consists of ALL HUMANS.  The scientific method is about the consideration of ALL ideas, which is exactly what the market is.  Those ideas which work will rise, those which don't will fall.  To relegate the work of the market to 'teams' is to water down the scientific method, to reduce your potential outcome and along the way initiate force against all those who COULD have done otherwise with their ideas, labor, fruit of labor, etc.

Sorry, you believe in a danced up form of Marxism.  It's hard for you to accept, but it is the truth.  Again, that's not to say Peter has contributed nothing, he has raised some GREAT points and no one can question his passion.  I hope that he stands behind what he believes, that is the scientific method and the non-initiation of violence.  As so many here have said, he and you are free to do what you wish, but the moment you FORCE anyone else who doesn't want to go with you, or as you like to say "re-educate", you are no better than any of the people you claim to despise.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> "This is a global movement, there is no isolation...We WILL have an economic system based on tangible resources and not monetary systems..the paradigm is over..you just wait and see...this system is a self-mutating cancer and it's time the immune system stands up to take it down"
> 
> Sounds like he pretty much threw the idea of this being a voluntary peaceful movement out the $#@!ing window right quick. They'll have their Zeitgeist society, with the point of a gun pointed at our heads if we refuse.
> 
> I only skimmed the last part. He attacks Stefan for calling the Zeitgeist movement Marxist, but he never refutes how the Zeitgeist movement isn't Marxist. It's central planning, no matter how you cut it, that's Marxism.


And I like how he also says that _true_ central planning has never been tried but yet he thinks what we have now is a _true_ market system. Oh, the irony. 

What he's basically saying is that everyone can be happy having nothing but the bare essentials for survival, but then again didn't moving forward also talk about recreational happiness too? Implying that humans also have other desires beyond just the essentials necessary for survival. Are we all going to be robots? Surely we'll have to be reprogrammed, maybe we'll have real "happy pills" that will make us desire only what the great and powerful machines think we need. Yeah, that sounds like a science fiction novel right there.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Hey genius, the free market *IS* the scientific method.


The scientific method is applied to increasing the money value, not the human value, in the monetary market system.

----------


## __27__

> Such data would be entered in the system to determine the decision.  Once innovation is no longer stifled by the monetary market system, even better pipes may come along down the pipeline in a RBE.


Just type it in WHAT??  Do you have some magic telephone to the cosmic controller?  If not all you are describing is a system that has to be designed by a PERSON.  Someone has to sit down and write the code, and input the decision values for "gold toilet seat" as either yes or no.  Who is this person, and why do you think they have a right to impose their decisions on others by force?

You really come off more like a Jonestown cultist than someone who has the capability and understanding to actually rationally debate.  Constant cop-outs to the "system will decide" and "science dude" are not intelligent debate, they are the mutterings of a cultist so devoid of their own rational thoughts that they are willing to accept and regurgitate what they are told ad infinitum.  If the rest of the people in TVP are even remotely close to you, which is all that I have heard of them though I was reserving my judgment for my own personal interactions with them, then TVP is nothing more than a new twist on Jonestown.

----------


## __27__

> The scientific method is applied to increasing the money value, not the human value, in the monetary market current corporatist statist system.


Glad to see that you understand your 'solution' is an afront to the scientific method.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Just type it in WHAT??


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Data from surveys of available resources of human biological needs.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> To be fair, he's supposedly kinda saying the same thing as when Ron Paul says the wars will end one way or another, one of these days we will be broke, or the Fed is going to end itself, etc..
> 
> I'm not saying that the Zeitgeist movement won't make some massive army and go out and kill dissenters, but currently none of the people I know involved in the movement would support that.


Ask your roommate this. 

Not all societies in the world use money or the market system. What about indigenous tribes that don't speak any recognizable English and aren't a part of "civilization." In a resource based economy we have to have all of the resources on Earth, meaning they'll have to take the resources of these people away and either force them to live in their circular cities or kill them off. This also brings up the question of language in general. Are the circular cities going to be on different continents? We're still going to have every language we currently have? Who is going to teach the children in school? If teachers are, they are just going to volunteer their services because they will want to? What if no one does?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Glad to see that you understand your 'solution' is an afront to the scientific method.


A corporatist state is just a natural manifestation resulting from the aberrant behavior that the monetary market system inevitably creates.

----------


## __27__

Wow, you really have taken after Peter.  Duck, dodge, evade.  The more you type, the less credibility you have.

----------


## hugolp

> The scientific method is applied to increasing the money value, not the human value, in the monetary market system.


This doesnt make any sense.

Can you give a reasoned answer to the arguments presented and not repeat the talking points?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Ask your roommate this. 
> 
> Not all societies in the world use money or the market system. What about indigenous tribes that don't speak any recognizable English and aren't a part of "civilization." In a resource based economy we have to have all of the resources on Earth, meaning they'll have to take the resources of these people away and either force them to live in their circular cities or kill them off. This also brings up the question of language in general. Are the circular cities going to be on different continents? We're still going to have every language we currently have? Who is going to teach the children in school? If teachers are, they are just going to volunteer their services because they will want to? What if no one does?


What about indigenous tribes in the monetary market system?  They are exploited for profit, because profit must continue to increase to continue paying interest on the debt in a continually expanding money supply.

----------


## __27__

> What about indigenous tribes in the monetary market system?  They are exploited for profit, because profit must continue to increase to continue paying interest on the debt in a continually expanding money supply.


You seem to conflate fiat currency with money as a medium of exchange.  The two are not even remotely the same, and could be the first link in the error chain that leads you down the road of Marxism.

----------


## Jim Casey

> This doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Can you give a reasoned answer to the arguments presented and not repeat the talking points?


The arguments are presented withing the confines of the mind lock of the monetary market system.  It's time to move on from that system.  Here is a good lecture to help folks to understand valid talking points regarding the RBE, rather than spinning wheels debating within the limited context of monetary market economic theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDSdrfGvUBM

----------


## silverhandorder

> You seem to conflate fiat currency with money as a medium of exchange.  The two are not even remotely the same, and could be the first link in the error chain that leads you down the road of Marxism.


Actually they are against usury. So even loans and interest is exploitation to them.

@Jim Casey I notice you and Peter use a lot of words like contextual, mind lock and etc. What do you think you are accomplishing saying that? It does you no good dismissing all our arguments without actually explaining these phrases and how they apply to our argument. 

You have yet to present how your resource base system will solve the simplest things like economic calculations.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Wow, you really have taken after Peter.  Duck, dodge, evade.  The more you type, the less credibility you have.


The best way to increase understanding of the paradigm of the resource based economy is to avoid falling into the trap of limiting the discussion to debating aspects of monetary market economic theory that are not applicable to the resource based economic system.  Peter does an excellent job explaining how those various arguments simply do not apply to the model he presents.

----------


## dannno

> The arguments are presented withing the confines of the mind lock of the monetary market system.  It's time to move on from that system.  Here is a good lecture to help folks to understand valid talking points regarding the RBE, rather than spinning wheels debating within the limited context of monetary market economic theory.


He would be a lot more convincing if he actually understood monetary economics..

----------


## __27__

> The best way to increase understanding of the paradigm of the resource based economy is to avoid falling into the trap of limiting the discussion to debating aspects of monetary market economic theory that are not applicable to the resource based economic system.  Peter does an excellent job explaining how those various arguments simply do not apply to the model he presents.


"The best way to not answer a valid criticism is to not answer it."

Thanks.  That's entirely "scientific methody" of you.

----------


## Jeremy

Peter Joseph, in the video that was just posted, basically thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an irrational sheeple who is caught up in their own wacky, invalid beliefs.  It's quite ironic in my opinion.

----------


## __27__

> Peter Joseph, in the video that was just posted, basically thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an irrational sheeple who is caught up in their own wacky, invalid beliefs.  It's quite ironic in my opinion.


The longer TZM/TVP are under the spotlight, the more Peter looks like Jim Jones, and his followers the inhabitants of Jonestown.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Actually they are against usury. So even loans and interest is exploitation to them.
> 
> @Jim Casey I notice you and Peter use a lot of words like contextual, mind lock and etc. What do you think you are accomplishing saying that? It does you no good dismissing all our arguments without actually explaining these phrases and how they apply to our argument. 
> 
> You have yet to present how your resource base system will solve the simplest things like economic calculations.


I've repeatedly referred to systems theory, but that idea is locked out of minds that adhere strictly to the monetary market economic model.  Contextual mind lock is an accurate description of this phenomenon. 
http://thezeitgeistmovementblog.word...based-economy/



> The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) seeks to transition into a new social system, called a “Resource-Based Economy” which	seeks to base social organization on Resource Management and Preservation as the initial starting point of all relevant earthly decisions. In turn, we wish to see Science and Technology be used liberally for the greater social good, including the scientific reorientation of Labor, Production, Distribution and hence Industry at large. This can be done through a “Systems Theory” approach to a global technological management infrastructure. “Politics”, as we know it today, is considered outdated in the view of The Movement, for it is an institutional by- product of ancient folkways of human relations that pre-dates the advent of modern scientific understandings. Politics inherently prefers “opinion” to “fact”. In other words, Government today acts in accord with vested interests, not objective scientific reasoning. This is largely due to the nature of the monetary system and how it has evolved since its early conception.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Actually they are against usury. So even loans and interest is exploitation to them.
> 
> @Jim Casey I notice you and Peter use a lot of words like contextual, mind lock and etc. What do you think you are accomplishing saying that? It does you no good dismissing all our arguments without actually explaining these phrases and how they apply to our argument. 
> 
> You have yet to present how your resource base system will solve the simplest things like economic calculations.


While he mentioned great midns such as Hayek and Mises, I doubt he has done much actual reading of their economic teachings.

Casting aside loans, interest, and 'the capitalist' shows that he does not understand the concept of time preference in austrian economics. Let alone a plethora of other valid economic concepts.

The movie (Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) and vision is just one giant strawman attack on the free market. It's like 'Capitalism: A Love Story' is one giant strawman attack on capitalism, when it is actually attacking corporatism, which is only possible within the context of an intervening government.

You can't abolish private property through abolishing the State. Private property does not arise out of the State. It is witnessed in nature, and in the (not so) Wild West, virtually completely absent a State, private property was still recognized, and with few resources made the alleged 'wild west' one of the fastest growing and prosperous areas in history, with no higher crime rate, and in most places much less crime rate, than in the Statist eastern US.

----------


## Jeremy

> The longer TZM/TVP are under the spotlight, the more Peter looks like Jim Jones, and his followers the inhabitants of Jonestown.


He also said no one has ever debunked his view on economics.  Can't wait for Stefan to be on the show and I hope Peter is actually there too.

----------


## __27__

> He also said no one has ever debunked his view on economics.  Can't wait for Stefan to be on the show and I hope Peter is actually there too.


Interested economist: "Peter I have a question about your economic theory."

Peter: "Mind lock.  Next question?"

----------


## Jim Casey

> "The best way to not answer a valid criticism is to not answer it."
> 
> Thanks.  That's entirely "scientific methody" of you.


The answer is there, it just won't be a valid answer to those who limit their world model to the monetary market economic paradigm.  The value of the scientific method is that the problems inherent in rigid adherence to such a model are readily analyzed and conclusions reached.

----------


## __27__

> The answer is there, it just won't be a valid answer to those who limit their world model to the monetary market economic paradigm.  The value of the scientific method is that the problems inherent in rigid adherence to such a model are readily analyzed and conclusions reached.


Dodge.

----------


## Sentient Void

> The answer is there, it just won't be a valid answer to those who limit their world model to the monetary market economic paradigm.  The value of the scientific method is that the problems inherent in rigid adherence to such a model are readily analyzed and conclusions reached.


Such a statement has no intellectual value whatsoever. You're saying nothing. You're adding nothing of value to the conversation and are being completely intellectually dishonest by evading legitimate criticisms.

"How do you handle the coordination and calculation problem that is found in central planning?"

"That's irrelevant."

Epic Fail.

----------


## Jim Casey

> He also said no one has ever debunked his view on economics.  Can't wait for Stefan to be on the show and I hope Peter is actually there too.


Check out Peter's undebunking lecture from 2009 here.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Such a statement has no intellectual value whatsoever. You're saying nothing. You're adding nothing of value to the conversation and are being completely intellectually dishonest by evading legitimate criticisms.
> 
> "How do you handle the coordination and calculation problem that is found in central planning?"
> 
> "That's irrelevant."
> 
> Epic Fail.


The problems of central planning are solved with systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Folks fail to understand that due to the mind lock of rigid adherence to the monetary market economic model.

----------


## silverhandorder

Would you be kind and explain that to us?

----------


## Sentient Void

> The problems of central planning are solved with systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Folks fail to understand that due to the mind lock of rigid adherence to the monetary market economic model.


Please explain how systems theory tackles this issue effectively with 'interdisciplinary teams'. I will do research on systems theory in the meantime, but until then - you must be able to effectively communicate how this will work, otherwise you're engaging in blind faith and you may as well be following a religion.

We can effectively explain our process for organizing capital, labor and resources from the bottom up, why it is best worked this way, why it is moral, etc. Now it's your turn. Provide us with your alternative. Peter Joseph was frustratingly vague and nebulous as to how it would all work. He just claims a supercomputer and the scientific method will do it. This is an absurd claim backed by nothing. Simply telling people to read a book or do research on a specific topic not only says nothing about if and how you understand the system you're advocating, but good luck to you on actually recruiting people who will understand what they are advocating and trying spread around as opposed to what will basically amount to a religion with a small group of clergymen at the top to interpret and determine truth and societal/resource organization.

----------


## Jeremy

> The answer is there, it just won't be a valid answer to those who limit their world model to the monetary market economic paradigm.  The value of the scientific method is that the problems inherent in rigid adherence to such a model are readily analyzed and conclusions reached.


What do you mean "limit their world model to the monetary market economic paradigm"?  People who support the free market are fine with transactions that don't use money.  Like if I was a cow farmer, you made rocking chairs, you wanted milk, and I wanted a rocking chair, I could trade you some milk for a rocking chair.

----------


## Jeremy

> The problems of central planning are solved with systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Folks fail to understand that due to the mind lock of rigid adherence to the monetary market economic model.


 How does a team solve the problems of central planning?  People don't fail to understand because of "mind lock."  They fail to understand because you aren't explaining anything when they ask you to.

----------


## Jeremy

> Please explain how systems theory tackles this issue effectively with 'interdisciplinary teams'. I will do research on systems theory in the meantime, but until then - you must be able to effectively communicate how this will work, otherwise you're engaging in blind faith and you may as well be following a religion.


Peter ironically compared the opposing views to religion in the video Jim Casey posted.

----------


## hugolp

> The problems of central planning are solved with systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Folks fail to understand that due to the mind lock of rigid adherence to the monetary market economic model.


People dont fail to understand it. People understand it wont work. But since you refuse to address any logical arguments you can not discuss it. You are emotionally binded to that idea. Your brain gets pleasure from thinking on that future and will refuse to acknowledge any criticism because it takes away the pleasure. This is the reason why Peter always refuses to adress anything logically and always goes back to comparing the present system to how the dream would be. He is selling a dream because he knows if you buy it you will be cought in there.

If you really think I am being unfair, you could stop saying how wonderful things are going to be in a central planning economy and explain us HOW its going to happen.

----------


## Vessol

> The arguments are presented withing the confines of the mind lock of the monetary market system.  It's time to move on from that system.  Here is a good lecture to help folks to understand valid talking points regarding the RBE, rather than spinning wheels debating within the limited context of monetary market economic theory.





> The best way to increase understanding of the paradigm of the resource based economy is to avoid falling into the trap of limiting the discussion to debating aspects of monetary market economic theory that are not applicable to the resource based economic system.  Peter does an excellent job explaining how those various arguments simply do not apply to the model he presents.





> The answer is there, it just won't be a valid answer to those who limit their world model to the monetary market economic paradigm.  The value of the scientific method is that the problems inherent in rigid adherence to such a model are readily analyzed and conclusions reached.


 


> The problems of central planning are solved with systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Folks fail to understand that due to the mind lock of rigid adherence to the monetary market economic model.


Jesus christ, you're like one of those wind-up dolls that keeps repeating itself.

Can you say anything BESIDES what amounts to "You're brainwashed"

Why don't you give us examples and other forms of logic instead of just avoiding the entire issue. You're style of debate is exactly like Peter Joesph's, you make ad hominem attacks and then just say "You don't understand because you're locked in the brainwashing of a market economy". Never explaining anything in details or with clear logic.

----------


## Jeremy

Saying someone has "mind lock" and "cannot understand the truth" is not a real argument.  If you have the answers, why are you having such a hard time explaining them?

----------


## Sentient Void

Yeah, telling everyone they have 'mind lock' is tantamount to psychological projection, if anything.

----------


## hugolp

> Yeah, telling everyone they have 'mind lock' is tantamount to psychological projection, if anything.


Protecting the dream, which is really the only thing that holds the bull$#@! together.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> What about indigenous tribes in the monetary market system?  They are exploited for profit, because profit must continue to increase to continue paying interest on the debt in a continually expanding money supply.


Ok you're answering my question with a question. My point being that not all indigenous tribes have been exploited by the monetary market system as of yet. I'm sure it's coming, but like everyone else has told you, none of us support the current system. If there are any indigenous tribes out there left, are you going to take their resources and force them into the system?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> A corporatist state is just a natural manifestation resulting from the aberrant behavior that the monetary market system inevitably creates.


These folks never seem to hold the state accountable to anything that is reducing the standard of living.  They always blame the market first.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Ok you're answering my question with a question. My point being that not all indigenous tribes have been exploited by the monetary market system as of yet. I'm sure it's coming, but like everyone else has told you, none of us support the current system. If there are any indigenous tribes out there left, are you going to take their resources and force them into the system?


Participants within the monetary market paradigm are in fact supporters of the system, even if they object to the system. 



> These folks never seem to hold the state accountable to anything that is reducing the standard of living.  They always blame the market first.


The state itself and the problems created by the state are manifested by the monetary market system.  Any system that encourages competition cannot avoid rewarding violence.  The state that manifests within the monetary market system is designed to protect certain individuals from the chaotic environment that rewards violence.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The state itself and the problems created by the state are manifested by the monetary market system.


Let me guess... not is the market responsible for the state.. but the state is the only thing that's prevented the market from collapsing... right?

If the state wasn't taxing nearly 50% of everything I own, I'd be in much worse shape, in your opinion, right?>





> *"If it wasn't for the state.... the free market would have self-destructed a thousand times over.* *It's the state that stops the monopolies that are a natural gravitation within the system.* It's the legal structure that keeps things under control - the rampant amount of corruption that's built into the system, as everyone games for strategy and the differential advantage. The socially darwinistic attribute of this system produces nothing but corruption, and *if it wasn't for state regulation and the legal system, you would have a circus of monkeys running in circles throwing feces at each other trying to steal anything and everything that they can.* THATS what the system actually is, and this 'fallback' that 'its the state' is one of the WEAKEST unsupported notions - taxation, all this crap that they throw out there has no basis on anything! *If it wasn't for the STATE, this system would have self-destructed a long, long time ago."*


You agree with PJ right?




> Any system that encourages competition cannot avoid rewarding violence.


   A comparison is a competition.  The scientific method is based on comparing competing theories with evidence to see what works best.  How do you plan on using the scientific method, without competition on scientific ideas.  Do you already have* all* the right answers in regards to science?  Are you going to throw the scientific method out the windows, since it relies on competition?




> The state that manifests within the monetary market system is designed to protect certain individuals from the chaotic environment that rewards violence.


The State *IS* Violence.

----------


## Vessol

> The state itself and the problems created by the state are manifested by the monetary market system.  Any system that encourages competition cannot avoid rewarding violence.  The state that manifests within the monetary market system is designed to protect certain individuals from the chaotic environment that rewards violence.


And how is Peter Joesph's system any less violent? What will Peter Joesph do to me if I and other like-minded individuals leave his society, find a land that we like and settle it, but it also has valuable natural resources that he covets such as a gold deposit.

How about dating. Would dating be still allowed in the Zeitgeist society? Or would the computer select my mate? Dating is highly competitive by nature, and by your definition competition always rewards violence.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Participants within the monetary market paradigm are in fact supporters of the system, even if they object to the system. 
> 
> The state itself and the problems created by the state are manifested by the monetary market system.  Any system that encourages competition cannot avoid rewarding violence.  The state that manifests within the monetary market system is designed to protect certain individuals from the chaotic environment that rewards violence.


Ok so you're a supporter of robbery if someone has a gun to your head demanding your wallet? Of course not, once again. Another dodge. 

(Maybe this person is just trolling, because this is totally ridiculous) 

Just answer the question, please. 

*If there are any indigenous tribes out there left, are you going to take their resources and force them into the system?*

----------


## ClayTrainor

> (Maybe this person is just trolling, because this is totally ridiculous)


In my experience with talking to these folks for the last week or so... he is about the norm.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The state itself and the problems created by the state are manifested by the monetary market system.  Any system that encourages competition cannot avoid rewarding violence.  The state that manifests within the monetary market system is designed to protect certain individuals from the chaotic environment that rewards violence.


What?  This is incoherent.  You claim that competitive systems "reward violence".  Then you go on to say that the state somehow "protects" certain people from this "market violence".  You've created social and economic mechanisms in your mind out of whole cloth!

----------


## hugolp

> The state itself and the problems created by the state are manifested by the monetary market system.  Any system that encourages competition cannot avoid rewarding violence.  The state that manifests within the monetary market system is designed to protect certain individuals from the chaotic environment that rewards violence.


Ok. Please, answer this to me (without using the you are brainwashed automatic response). Im truly curious about this. If competition is so bad and inevitably leads to violence to avoid violence and have the just society you dream of it should be avoided, right? That is what you are saying as I understand.

What about choosing a partner? Should males compete so the woman they want chooses them or will The Computer choose your sexual and emotional partner for you? What about literature? Should The Computer choose what you should read as to avoid competition between writters? What about sports?

Or is this competition "theoryç" just an excuse to justify the centralization of the economy in a few hands and poeple can do as they like and compete in other areas?

----------


## ClayTrainor

The kind folks over at the FDR forum have linked to this thread in regards to something Mr. Casey has said.

http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/29383.aspx

They have some very interesting insight towards how these folks behave...





> robots will give me what mommy didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by MrCapitalism
> 
> ...




Personally, I think they're onto something.

----------


## sevin

> Originally Posted by QueenB4Liberty
> 
> (Maybe this person is just trolling, because this is totally ridiculous)
> 
> 
>  In my experience with talking to these folks for the last week or so... he is about the norm.


I was beginning to think the same as QueenB4Liberty. He must be a troll. 

Then again, if this is the norm, then these zombies really need to be educated by people who know better. I love their idealism and their opposition to the central banking system, but they're being led astray.

----------


## Jim Casey

> And how is Peter Joesph's system any less violent? What will Peter Joesph do to me if I and other like-minded individuals leave his society, find a land that we like and settle it, but it also has valuable natural resources that he covets such as a gold deposit.
> 
> How about dating. Would dating be still allowed in the Zeitgeist society? Or would the computer select my mate? Dating is highly competitive by nature, and by your definition competition always rewards violence.


A society operating with a resource based economy will be less violent because there is no societal pressure to compete for survival.  When everyone already has their basic needs met, mate selection can also operate outside the paradigm of who successfully hoards the most resources. 



> Ok so you're a supporter of robbery if someone has a gun to your head demanding your wallet? Of course not, once again. Another dodge. 
> 
> (Maybe this person is just trolling, because this is totally ridiculous) 
> 
> Just answer the question, please. 
> 
> *If there are any indigenous tribes out there left, are you going to take their resources and force them into the system?*


Global resources will be allocated via systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Within the RBE paradigm, nobody owns resources, the tribes don't own their land, so nobody is taking anything from anyone.  Indigenous tribes are simply one part of the cooperative human organism that naturally operates as a whole as has been scientifically proven. 



> In my experience with talking to these folks for the last week or so... he is about the norm.


I'm glad that the ideas presented in TZM are spreading.  It's good to know that critical mass is approaching.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'm glad that the ideas presented in TZM are spreading.  It's good to know that critical mass is approaching.


And when your critical mass approaches, what happens to the things that I own?  Do you take them for your movement?

----------


## silverhandorder

> A society operating with a resource based economy will be less violent because there is no societal pressure to compete for survival.  When everyone already has their basic needs met, mate selection can also operate outside the paradigm of who successfully hoards the most resources. 
> 
> Global resources will be allocated via systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Within the RBE paradigm, nobody owns resources, the tribes don't own their land, so nobody is taking anything from anyone.  Indigenous tribes are simply one part of the cooperative human organism that naturally operates as a whole as has been scientifically proven. 
> 
> I'm glad that the ideas presented in TZM are spreading.  It's good to know that critical mass is approaching.


So wait let me get this straight competition isn't bad after all? Is it only competition you do not like that is bad?

The native tribes and anyone that wants to keep resources to them selves get wiped out violently. Gotcha.

----------


## Vessol

> I'm glad that the ideas presented in TZM are spreading.  It's good to know that critical mass is approaching.


Yeah..obvious troll is obvious.

----------


## dannno

> What?  This is incoherent.  You claim that competitive systems "reward violence".  Then you go on to say that the state somehow "protects" certain people from this "market violence".  You've created social and economic mechanisms in your mind out of whole cloth!


My roommate always says that the corporations ARE the govt, they are the same thing. I agree. He gave me the analogy that if we got rid of the state apparatus that corporations would get together and enforce the same kind of tyranny and just call it something else. I disagree. People only accept the tyranny of the state because they are taught that this is some sort of collaborative creation of all individuals, everybody has a say, and so their actions are some how justified. Take that away, you aren't going to have massive populations just bowing down to some corporate cabal because they have guns..

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I was beginning to think the same as QueenB4Liberty. He must be a troll. 
> 
> Then again, if this is the norm, then these zombies really need to be educated by people who know better. I love their idealism and their opposition to the central banking system, but they're being led astray.


The behavior of the average TZM supporter tends to be very troll-like in my experience. Nearly indistinguishable.

There are *SOME* open-minded, honest and genuinely confused people in their movement, but most of them are treating this Zeitgeist thing like it's the second coming of Christ or something, lol.

----------


## silverhandorder

dannno what you mean to say is that people do not view state as morally evil. If it gets shown that use of compulsory force is moral evil no one else would be able to imitate it without having people notice it.




> The behavior of the average TZM supporter tends to be very troll-like in my experience. Nearly indistinguishable.


They are not trolling they are just thought some retarded language and debate skills by the people that run TVP and TZM.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> A society operating with a resource based economy will be less violent because there is no societal pressure to compete for survival.  When everyone already has their basic needs met, mate selection can also operate outside the paradigm of who successfully hoards the most resources. 
> 
> Global resources will be allocated via systems theory applied by interdisciplinary teams.  Within the RBE paradigm, nobody owns resources, the tribes don't own their land, so nobody is taking anything from anyone.  Indigenous tribes are simply one part of the cooperative human organism that naturally operates as a whole as has been scientifically proven. 
> 
> I'm glad that the ideas presented in TZM are spreading.  It's good to know that critical mass is approaching.


These tribes have no concept of "ownership" or other people, really. They have never interacted with other societies, so you would have to steal everything from them to get it. And how in the world would you integrate them into your society? By force. 

And really, the TZM has less than a million members worldwide. In fact, it has slightly over half a million members. I don't really think that it's going anywhere. 2 million youtube views doesn't say much, when I'm sure people could've watched it more than once, and judging by all of these threads here, I'm sure many people watched it for a good laugh. I myself have watched it twice, once by myself, and once with my fiance. We both think TZM is absurd. So I guess critical mass isn't approaching.

----------


## Vessol

> Within the RBE paradigm, nobody owns resources, the tribes don't own their land, so nobody is taking anything from anyone.


So guys, I stole a car last night, and because I believe that nobody can own any property I technically didn't steal it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> They are not trolling they are just thought some retarded language and debate skills by the people that run TVP and TZM.


lol, yup.  It'll be very interesting to see how Peter Joseph and other Zeitgeisters behave in a live on-the-air format, when Stefan starts asking them some tough objective questions.

----------


## Jim Casey

> These tribes have no concept of "ownership"


Participants within the RBE will have discarded the concept of ownership as obsolete.



> And really, the TZM has less than a million members worldwide. In fact, it has slightly over half a million members. I don't really think that it's going anywhere. 2 million youtube views doesn't say much, when I'm sure people could've watched it more than once, and judging by all of these threads here, I'm sure many people watched it for a good laugh. I myself have watched it twice, once by myself, and once with my fiance. We both think TZM is absurd. So I guess critical mass isn't approaching.


We'll see about that.  

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And when your critical mass approaches, what happens to the things that I own?  Do you take them for your movement?


can you answer this for me, Mr. Casey?

----------


## Jim Casey

> So guys, I stole a car last night, and because I believe that nobody can own any property I technically didn't steal it.


Nobody needs to own an automobile.  The benefit of transportation by having access to automobile use can manifest without the concept of property ownership.

----------


## Vessol

Reposting this from that FMR thread that Clay posted.

I think this is VERY relevent to what the Zeitgeist movement actually is. Talking with people who adhere to it, they're starting to scare me more and more with their talk that amounts to violent coersive collectivism.

"_After the revolutionary period of the Fifties and Sixties, society regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle and Low [classes]. But the new High group, unlike it's forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had been long realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called "abolition of private property" which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before; but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything and disposes of the products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport- everything had been taken away from them; and since these things wwere no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program, with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent_." - George Orwell, 1984 (From "Chapter 1: Ignorance is Strength")

----------


## Jim Casey

> can you answer this for me, Mr. Casey?


Like in the game monopoly, the things you think you own go back into the box like they will anyway one day.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Like in the game monopoly, the things you think you own go back into the box like they will anyway one day.


So, your monopoly is going to forcefully seize all of my assets and put them in your "box"?  Is this accurate?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Nobody needs to own an automobile.  The benefit of transportation by having access to automobile use can manifest without the concept of property ownership.


So you have absolutely no problem if someone from your zeitgeist movement takes your car tonight, without your permission, and never returns it?

----------


## sevin

For lolz/facepalms, visit hxxp://thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view  &catid=229&id=316647

Also, just a random thought, how does the idea of no property fit with human nature? Human beings naturally want to own things in the same way a dog growls when you try to take its bone away. How in the hell would people not end up keeping and hoarding things in a RBE?

----------


## Vessol

> Like in the game monopoly, the things you think you own go back into the box like they will anyway one day.


I think I heard the faint clicking back of a pistol hammer.




> Nobody needs to own an automobile.  The benefit of transportation by having access to automobile use can manifest without the concept of property ownership.


Hey Jim, could you post your address here? Afterall, what are you worried about? Someone might take your car, or your clothes, maybe even the free market produced computer that you are using currently. But, these are all the trapping of private property so who cares about them? Do you lock your door at night?

----------


## Jim Casey

> So you have absolutely no problem if someone from your zeitgeist movement takes your car tonight, without your permission, and never returns it?


I don't need to own a car to have access to the transportation that a car can provide me with.  Access abundance with knowledge of limited resources is a higher goal than personal property inventory.  When folks have access to all they need, they aren't worried about having to compete to acquire or defend property to meet those needs.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I don't need to own a car to have access to the transportation that a car can provide me with.  Access abundance with knowledge of limited resources is a higher goal than personal property inventory.  When folks have access to all they need, they aren't worried about having to compete to acquire or defend property to meet those needs.


So because you're okay with people stealing your car, you're okay with people stealing my car?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Hey Jim, could you post your address here? Afterall, what are you worried about? Someone might take your car, or your clothes, maybe even the free market produced computer that you are using currently. But, these are all the trapping of private property so who cares about them? Do you lock your door at night?


Answer this Jim.  You claim you don't care about property, so why don't you tell us where we can come pick up your computer so we can "share" it.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I think I heard the faint clicking back of a pistol hammer.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Jim, could you post your address here? Afterall, what are you worried about? Someone might take your car, or your clothes, maybe even the free market produced computer that you are using currently. But, these are all the trapping of private property so who cares about them? Do you lock your door at night?


Since I still participate within the monetary market system, I still defend my property from the violent aberrant behavior that is still currently rewarded within the monetary market system.  Once critical mass is reached and access abundance manifested within a resource based economy, I could care less about the car I own today, just as I could care less about the 5 cars I previously owned.

----------


## hugolp

> I don't need to own a car to have access to the transportation that a car can provide me with.  Access abundance with knowledge of limited resources is a higher goal than personal property inventory.  When folks have access to all they need, they aren't worried about having to compete to acquire or defend property to meet those needs.


The Computer will provide. Amen.


EDIT: Btw, you should come out and admit the ideas of the movement is marxism. Just explaining the same ideas with different labels does not make them different. The resource economy or however you call it is marxism. There is no need of denying it and it would make the discussion easier.

----------


## hugolp

> Since I still participate within the monetary market system, I still defend my property from the violent aberrant behavior that is still currently rewarded within the monetary market system.  Once critical mass is reached and access abundance manifested within a resource based economy,


Amen.

These guys are fun.

----------


## Jim Casey

> So because you're okay with people stealing your car, you're okay with people stealing my car?


I only care about my property because it's the only means I have to access that technology.  I don't need to own my computer or my car anymore anymore than I needed to own previous cars and computers that I once owned.  Ownership has always simply been a means to access, and that means will become obsolete.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The Computer will provide. Amen.


Amen.

----------


## Vessol

> Since I still participate within the monetary market system, I still defend my property from the violent aberrant behavior that is still currently rewarded within the monetary market system.  Once critical mass is reached and access abundance manifested within a resource based economy, I could care less about the car I own today, just as I could care less about the 5 cars I previously owned.


You can't even practice what you preach? How disappointing.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The Computer will provide. Amen.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Btw, you should come out and admit the ideas of the movement is marxism. Just explaining the same ideas with different labels does not make them different. The resource economy or however you call it is marxism. There is no need of denying it and it would make the discussion easier.


Describing the resource based economic system as Marxism would be as inappropriate as describing religious systems based on something other than Christianity as Satanism.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You can't even practice what you preach? How disappointing.


I can and do.  I share resources with others all the time.  However, it is currently impossible to attain the level of access abundance that I preach within the restraints of the current monetary market economic model.  That will change.

----------


## Vessol

> Describing the resource based economic system as Marxism would be as inappropriate as describing religious systems based on something other than Christianity as Satanism.


Please explain in more details.

Marxism= the abolition of the State and all private property. How's the TZM any different besides the super computer bs?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Please explain in more details.
> 
> Marxism= the abolition of the State and all private property. How's the TZM any different?


Marxism is a historical concept.  TZM is the future.  We're not repeating history, we're making it. 



> How's the TZM any different besides the super computer bs?


Systems theory is an entirely valid concept applied in many interdisciplinary contexts.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I only care about my property because it's the only means I have to access that technology.  I don't need to own my computer or my car anymore anymore than I needed to own previous cars and computers that I once owned.  Ownership has always simply been a means to access, and that means will become obsolete.


I wouldn't care about my computer as much, either, if I could just go downtown to my Zeitgeist robot and get better and faster one for free, lol.

I want a bunch of amazing free $#@! too... i mean sure, I can understand that... Getting everything you ever dreamed of in abundance would be $#@!ing amazing.

Can you do me a favor and *apply the scientific method to your idea*, and show me that you can provide just 1 thing in abundance to a small group of people in a sustainable fashion, before you demand the resources of the world?

You have to acquire resources, and then produce things from those resources, and then calculate the distribution of those resources, etc.

So..*. apply the scientific method.*  Go test your theory, and get me some free $#@! in abundance, than maybe I'll support your idea.

But wait... it can't be done til i give you my private property, am i right?  If so, how can you guarantee me that i'll be getting free stuff in return, when i give you my property?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Can you do me a favor and *apply the scientific method to your idea*, and show me that you can provide just 1 thing in abundance to a small group of people in a sustainable fashion, before you demand the resources of the world?


Oxygen is supplied in abundance to all people, not just small groups.  It is nature that provides the resources, it is systems theory that TZM will apply to distribute them and plan production, just as systems theory is applied in many other contexts.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Marxism is a historical concept.  TZM is the future.  We're not repeating history, we're making it.



Nah, you're repeating it.  This is like Marx's epic sequel, With Robots!!!

How does TZM feel about private property?...

"The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: The Abolition of Private Property" - Karl Marx.






> Systems theory is an entirely valid concept applied in many interdisciplinary contexts.


Sounds pretty borg-like to me, lol.

----------


## Vessol

> I can and do.  I share resources with others all the time.  However, it is currently impossible to attain the level of access abundance that I preach within the restraints of the current monetary market economic model.  That will change.


I take it you've never seen a homeless on the street? A man who only has the clothes on his back and shuns all other property? Or what about Buddhist monks? What's stopping you from taking a life like this? There's nothing stopping you from relinquishing all your property.

Those guys have more virtue than you. Infact, I admire them greatly. You, on the other hand, *insult* those who peacefully give up material possessions and other worldly goods. You tarnish their peaceful ideals with your clear and blatant hypocrisy.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Oxygen is supplied in abundance to all people, not just small groups.  It is nature that provides the resources, it is systems theory that TZM will apply to distribute them and plan production, just as systems theory is applied in many other contexts.


lol! 

you gotta be trolling, this is getting too ridiculous.  Do you know what the scientific method is?  Apply it to your own theories.

Get me 5 free top of the line computers, and I'll start taking your theory seriously, and maybe let you have some of my property.  Deal?

Oxygen is a natural system, it was provided abundance without human intervention.  How are you going to acquire and use the existing resources, like oxygen, metals, plastics, energy, etc. in order to provide me with 5 free computers?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Nah, you're repeating it.  This is like Marx's epic sequel, With Robots!!!


Currency itself is an evolution of the barter system, not a repeat of the barter system.  Trading using coins was an advancement of civilization, just as distribution using systems is an advancement of civilization. 



> I take it you've never seen a homeless on the street? A man who only has the clothes on his back and shuns all other property? Or what about Buddhist monks? What's stopping you from taking a life like this? There's nothing stopping you from relinquishing all your property.
> 
> Those guys have more virtue than you. Infact, I admire them greatly. You, on the other hand, *insult* those who peacefully give up material possessions and other worldly goods. You tarnish their peaceful ideals with your clear and blatant hypocrisy.


Embracing the scarcity that results from limited abundance inherent in the monetary market system is no virtue.

----------


## hugolp

> Describing the resource based economic system as Marxism would be as inappropriate as describing religious systems based on something other than Christianity as Satanism.





> Marxism is a historical concept.  TZM is the future.  We're not repeating history, we're making it.


This thread is gold. The language of this people is so cultish. Its like they will die and go to heaven. They have the vision and believe in it. Thats all they need. Mix a bit of scientifism in it and voilá you got followers.

----------


## Jim Casey

> lol! 
> 
> you gotta be trolling, this is getting too ridiculous.  Do you know what the scientific method is?  Apply it to your own theories.
> 
> Get me 5 free top of the line computers, and I'll start taking your theory seriously, and maybe let you have some of my property.  Deal?
> 
> Oxygen is a natural system, it was provided abundance without human intervention.  How are you going to acquire and use the existing resources, like oxygen, metals, plastics, energy, etc. in order to provide me with 5 free computers.


The goal is to replace the monetary market system on a global scale.  Transitory replacements are only successful as other means of challenging the system.

----------


## Vessol

> Embracing the scarcity that results from limited abundance inherent in the monetary market system is no virtue.


LOL

Have you ever read up on Buddhist principles? They are not embracing the scarcity in any way shape or form, rather they intend to transcend beyond it spiritually.

----------


## Vessol

> The goal is to replace the monetary market system on a global scale.  Transitory replacements are only successful as other means of challenging the system.


So what happens when the super computer has a unforeseen bug and it fails to distribute food to millions of people which results in their starvation?

And before you say "It won't have any bugs of any kind", have you ever programmed before? You fix one thing, and five other things break. Talk to any programmer and he'll find your super computer idea incredibly dangerous.

Hell, on that subject,I wonder if any one of the 'experts' of the Zeitgeist movement even has a degree in computer science. Who the $#@! is gonna program this great super computer? lmao

----------


## silverhandorder

It is clear to me that TVP and TZM set them selves up for the impossible. They claim that they can provide a centrally planned system that does all of the points they mentioned. Well then where is this machine? Where is it's super good decisions that would shame the current structure? It does not exist and until they make the machine there shouldn't even be any discussion of RBE.

----------


## __27__

Jim,

I am sincerely concerned for your safety.  Your words, mental processes and behaviors here are not those of a rational being, but that of a brainwashed child being led around on a leash.  You have not gained any converts, you have gone further to convince many that what you belong to is not a rational intelligent movement, but a marxist cult luring vulnerable minds with promises of a 'beautiful future', just don't ask details.  Your life is yours alone to live, I would never force you to do anything against your will even if I thought it was for your benefit, as I respect your natural individual rights, but I sincerely hope that you seek help.  Wake up, take the red pill.  I'd hate for you to end up like this poor chap lured by promises of a 'beautiful future':

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Currency itself is an evolution of the barter system, not a repeat of the barter system.  Trading using coins was an advancement of civilization, just as distribution using systems is an advancement of civilization


That's probably the smartest thing you've said in the entire thread.  Money is just a technology that advances to solve the calculation problem.

Yes, the money we have today is corrupt, but this is not true for all forms of money. Government protected monopolies on money are evil, but that doesn't mean all money is bad.  The money is being raped.  

Rape is bad yes, but sex isn't.  Get my point?   

Just look at how strong Gold and silver is, and how strong the dollar would be if it was Gold or silver.  If you don't like metals, you don't have to use them it in a free-market... you can trade whatever *resources* you want, so long as other people value them.

I want a resource based economy based on individuals allocating resources through on a voluntary trade with eachother, you want a resource based economy where some kind of elite "teams" and "machines" will produce and distribute All of the worlds resources.  Does this seem like a fair statement to you?

How you plan on taking my property is still unclear to me.  If you plan is to convince me, i've told you how you can do it. Use the scientific method, Get me 5 top of the line computers for free, and I'll consider investing in your idea.  Deal?  If not, how do you plan on convincing me to give your movement my stuff?

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> So what happens when the super computer has a unforeseen bug and it fails to distribute food to millions of people which results in their starvation?


$#@! having a bug, I don't want to live in a society where there is an AI that controls your life. Sorry, but HAL 9000 went bug$#@! for a reason due to conflicting orders. I don't want to get liquidated because my toaster decided I was plotting against it.

----------


## Jim Casey

> LOL
> 
> Have you ever read up on Buddhist principles? They are not embracing the scarcity in any way shape or form, rather they intend to transcend beyond it spiritually.


Encouraging stratification of society is not transcendent.  Biological human needs must be met, and resources are always a means to that end, despite how much living in scarcity is touted as spiritually nourishing. 



> So what happens when the super computer has a unforeseen bug and it fails to distribute food to millions of people which results in their starvation?
> 
> And before you say "It won't have any bugs of any kind", have you ever programmed before?
> 
> Hell, on that subject,I wonder if any one of the 'experts' of the Zeitgeist movement even has a degree in computer science. Who the $#@! is gonna program this great super computer?


As with any system, there are backups.  Just like other forms of currency have replaced debased currencies, other backup systems can be put in place to replace bugged systems. 

The point of interdisciplinary teams is not to program the system using computer programming specialists, but rather to develop the system using folks who apply the scientific method in a myriad of contexts.

----------


## Jim Casey

> $#@! having a bug, I don't want to live in a society where there is an AI that controls your life. Sorry, but HAL 9000 went bug$#@! for a reason due to conflicting orders. I don't want to get liquidated because my toaster decided I was plotting against it.


Certainly the fear of debased currencies was valid when civilization advanced to adopt a currency based trade system, thus the fear of bugged systems is a valid fear as civilization advances to system based distribution systems.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Good to see other people wasting away their Saturday night on this $#@!, lol. 

Im definitely starting to feel like this is a troll job, and we're all dumbasses for falling for it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It is clear to me that TVP and TZM set them selves up for the impossible. They claim that they can provide a centrally planned system that does all of the points they mentioned. Well then where is this machine? Where is it's super good decisions that would shame the current structure? It does not exist and until they make the machine there shouldn't even be any discussion of RBE.


Their movement is the biggest bastardization of the scientific method of our time, imo.  They constantly chant scientific ideals, yet don't apply the scientific method to their own ideas.  They make wild promises, use the word science to convince people, and never actually demonstrate their society on the small scale before demanding ALL resources of the world.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Encouraging stratification of society is not transcendent.  Biological human needs must be met, and resources are always a means to that end, despite how much living in scarcity is touted as spiritually nourishing. 
> 
> As with any system, there are backups.  Just like other forms of currency have replaced debased currencies, other backup systems can be put in place to replace bugged systems. 
> 
> The point of interdisciplinary teams is not to program the system using computer programming specialists, but rather to develop the system using folks who apply the scientific method in a myriad of contexts.


First things first you need to show how you actually can remove scarcity. Without this proof you shouldn't even be talking.

Second even if we are in conditions of post scarcity there is still need for money. People still place value in intangible goods such as space (good parking spot) and in works of art. But to be honest I doubt you TZM guys are concerned about those things at all since you probably think none of that will be effected. As such you will probably just accept use of money in those instances since it will only pertain to those instances.

----------


## __27__

> Good to see other people wasting away their Saturday night on this $#@!, lol. 
> 
> Im definitely starting to feel like this is a troll job, and we're all dumbasses for falling for it.


Some random browsing of his post history shows a TON of union glorification and protectionism garbage.  If that wasn't simply trolling in the first place and he actually believed it, I'd say he was ripe for the picking of a marxist cult.

----------


## Vessol

> Some random browsing of his post history shows a TON of union glorification and protectionism garbage.  If that wasn't simply trolling in the first place and he actually believed it, I'd say he was ripe for the picking of a marxist cult.


I was glancing at that before too. One has to wonder with a posting history like that, why is he even here if he disagrees with even the most basic ideas that Ron Paul puts forth.

Even if he honestly believes the stuff he does(which I have little doubt of), the very fact that he purposefully registered on this forum in order to post his ideas and cause flame wars by the definition makes him a troll.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Their movement is the biggest bastardization of the scientific method of our time, imo.  They constantly chant scientific ideals, yet don't apply the scientific method to their own ideas.  They make wild promises, use the word science to convince people, and never actually demonstrate their society on the small scale before demanding ALL resources of the world.


That's the thing no one with any power will surrender their resources to them unless they are convinced that they can actually bring about post scarcity conditions. 

It is ridiculously easy to prove that you can achieve post scarcity conditions if you actually can achieve that. 

Btw when they say that I think they mean that just like how we do not fight over air (except some very specific situations) that we would not fight over things like houses, cars or food. So in essence just as I can force my self to hyperventilate to my hearts content the same thing I would be able to do in their utopia. So I would be able to order from the super computer twenty cars made specifically to my liking, twenty laptops and infinity of anything else material that I desire. 

Clearly that is not possible to achieve even remotely right now. 

They can always redefine scarcity to mean the bare minimum that we decide fulfills your needs as a human. In which case they do not offer anything remotely new.

----------


## Vessol

> They can always redefine scarcity to mean the bare minimum that we decide fulfills your needs as a human. In which case they do not offer anything remotely new.


"*Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level.* For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources — labor, land, and capital goods — to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about — in vain — to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.

The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster(And mass starvation-Vessol). Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence."

http://mises.org/daily/2197

----------


## silverhandorder

I know I think we would end up with what statists picture when we say anarchy if we let TZM run anything. However why even bother trying to teach them Austrian Economics. Just ask them to prove their theory that is enough of a mind $#@! for them that it may even snap some of them out of this delusion.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Their movement is the biggest bastardization of the scientific method of our time, imo.  They constantly chant scientific ideals, yet don't apply the scientific method to their own ideas.  They make wild promises, use the word science to convince people, and never actually demonstrate their society on the small scale before demanding ALL resources of the world.


Systems theory has already been scientifically proven to be very effective in a myriad of other contexts.  



> First things first you need to show how you actually can remove scarcity. Without this proof you shouldn't even be talking.
> 
> Second even if we are in conditions of post scarcity there is still need for money. People still place value in intangible goods such as space (good parking spot) and in works of art. But to be honest I doubt you TZM guys are concerned about those things at all since you probably think none of that will be effected. As such you will probably just accept use of money in those instances since it will only pertain to those instances.


Scarcity itself is contrived because it is a necessary function of the monetary market system.  There is more that enough resources and production to meet the needs of everyone on the planet.  However, it is impossible to obtain access abundance within this system because profit is made by selling people things they don't have so that abundance must remain limited to the few within the stratified society. 



> Some random browsing of his post history shows a TON of union glorification and protectionism garbage.  If that wasn't simply trolling in the first place and he actually believed it, I'd say he was ripe for the picking of a marxist cult.


Folks who have a history of silver investing are also ripe pickings for the liberty movement, especially if they've only watched the 1st Zeitgeist film rather than all 3.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Originally Posted by Jim Casey
> 
> 
> Systems theory has already been scientifically proven to be very effective in a myriad of other contexts.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


....

----------


## Vessol

> Scarcity itself is contrived because it is a necessary function of the monetary market system.  There is more that enough resources and production to meet the needs of everyone on the planet.  However, it is impossible to obtain access abundance within this system because profit is made by selling people things they don't have so that abundance must remain limited to the few within the stratified society.


So, why in every centrally planned economy has there been mass starvation?

If, as you say, scarcity is a farce and there is an abundance of resources everywhere that is repressed because of our current system that rewards greed:

Then why in every single centrally planned economy, *where profit was removed from the equation*, did tens of millions of people starve to death?

----------


## silverhandorder

So you do not agree with the definition of scarcity? Why not just be honest and say you want to fulfill basic needs? It would save us all a whole lot of time instead of you guys claiming to have a post scarcity solution. 

FFS this is what the government now is claiming to be trying to achieve. They also claim that they are scientific and all. In reality you are just saying you will manage planetary resources better then the other guys. This is not very convincing considering the other guys failed and you are not offering a strategy that is different from theirs. Government has interdisciplinary teams that think of all sorts of $#@! they would like to do with government money. 

You are not offering anything new.

----------


## __27__

> Systems theory has already been scientifically proven to be very effective in a myriad of other contexts.


With your new rendition on the scientific method I suppose, right?  You know the one, Step 1. Peter Joseph says something, Step 2. Scientific Fact.




> Scarcity itself is contrived because it is a necessary function of the monetary market system.  There is more that enough resources and production to meet the needs of everyone on the planet.  However, it is impossible to obtain access abundance within this system because profit is made by selling people things they don't have so that abundance must remain limited to the few within the stratified society.


So let's just make this clear.  You are asserting that resources are no longer finite?




> Folks who have a history of silver investing are also ripe pickings for the liberty movement, especially if they've only watched the 1st Zeitgeist film rather than all 3.




More of your new scientific method.  Question the teachings of Peter?  You must need to watch more Peter.  After you've watched more Peter you and I can discuss how right Peter is.

You are a cult member.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> With your new rendition on the scientific method I suppose, right?  You know the one, Step 1. Peter Joseph says something, Step 2. Scientific Fact.


lolololololololol.

----------


## Jim Casey

> With your new rendition on the scientific method I suppose, right?  You know the one, Step 1. Peter Joseph says something, Step 2. Scientific Fact.


I did link to wiki for successful examples of systems theory the Peter espouses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory



> 4 Applications of system theories
> 4.1 Living systems theory
> 4.2 Organizational theory
> 4.3 Software and computing
> 4.4 Sociology and Sociocybernetics
> 4.5 Systems biology
> 4.6 System dynamics
> 4.7 Systems engineering
> 4.8 Systems psychology






> So let's just make this clear.  You are asserting that resources are no longer finite?


Resources are finite.  However, the abundance of energy and the advancement of technology has resulted in an abundance of prosperity that is often attributed to the monetary market system, when rather it is that very system which has denied that massive increase in abundance to all but a limited few because that kind of stratification of society that inherently rewards violence and other aberrant competitive behavior is absolutely essential to the survival of that system.




> More of your new scientific method.  Question the teachings of Peter?  You must need to watch more Peter.  After you've watched more Peter you and I can discuss how right Peter is.
> 
> You are a cult member.


It's not just watching Peter's videos.  It's also personal experience with involvement in the Ron Paul campaign and the countless times I've defended the free market and precious metals based currencies over the years, as well as my involvement with the Teamsters and United Parcel Service.  Of course, the discussion is now about me, but I'm not going to link to other philosophies I've defended that are even more taboo at this place.  Let's just say I've spent quite some time in the marketplace of ideas and enjoy debating on sides that are sometimes less than fashionable.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Jim Casey has now infiltrated the FDR boards, lol.

http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/29383.aspx

----------


## Vessol

The only way I can see the Zeitgeist Movement actually coming to fruitation is through mass violence and the culling of those who disagree.

It's not unprecedented. Bolshevic Russia, Maoist China, AnCom Spain, the Khmer Rouge. They all killed massive amounts of people in order to obtain power, and they espoused the same exact rhetoric of abolishing private property, currency, and greed. Oh, yeah, well without the SUPER COM-PUTER!!!!

However, in the Zeitgeist movement, where the vast majority of members are middle-class white Americans in their teens and their 20's..I can't see any significant numbers of them actually being able to kill someone.

----------


## hugolp

The movement would actually gain a lot of credibility if they presented the computer program to rule them all. Without the program you are just making a promise, and a promise a lot of people have made before you and failed. You want us and the world to believe you? Show us the program. Its the least the leaders of the movement could do.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The only way I can see the Zeitgeist Movement actually coming to fruitation is through mass violence and the culling of those who disagree.
> 
> It's not unprecedented. Bolshevic Russia, Maoist China, AnCom Spain, the Khmer Rouge. They all killed massive amounts of people in order to obtain power.
> 
> However, in the Zeitgeist movement, where the vast majority of members are middle-class white Americans in their teens and their 20's..I can't see any significant numbers of them actually being able to kill someone.


Murder is aberrant behavior.  TZM will succeed by enlightening enough individuals to engage in civil disobedience against the monetary market system for critical mass to be reached and the new paradigm established.  Engaging in violence is absolutely not an option that TZM is putting on the table, regardless of how many people falsely adhere to the belief that violence is necessary to create this paradigm shift.

I haven't filed an income tax return since 1997, so I'm already engaged in long term civil disobedience.  My involvement in TZM is simply another expansion of that civil disobedience that I've been engaging in.



> The movement would actually gain a lot of credibility if they presented the computer program to rule them all. Without the program you are just making a promise, and a promise a lot of people have made before you and failed. You want us and the world to believe you? Show us the program. Its the least the leaders of the movement could do.


The system for resource distribution will be developed and will be continuously updated to meet the latest scientific advancements.  Creating the program isn't the hurdle to establishing the paradigm.  Overcoming the monetary market system is.

----------


## hugolp

> The system for resource distribution will be developed and will be continuously updated to meet the latest scientific advancements.  Creating the program isn't the hurdle to establishing the paradigm.


So basically the computer will be human driven. If a elite does not like the results it will "update" the program.

Also, you just admited that the program will need to be updated and that means it will not behave corretcly, otherwise it would not need updating.




> Overcoming the monetary market system is.


Amen.

----------


## purplechoe

[QUOTE=hugolp;3095400]The Computer will provide. Amen.

 

Where I come from we don't call them Marxists, they're called useful idiots...

it's time to pull the plug...

----------


## Jim Casey

> So basically the computer will be human driven. If a elite does not like the results it will "update" the program.
> 
> Also, you just admited that the program will need to be updated and that means it will not behave corretcly, otherwise it would not need updating.


The system is flexible enough to understand that the current level of scientific understanding is not the peak of scientific understanding.  The interdisciplinary teams are volunteers contributing their understanding to developing a constantly improving system, they're not some scary elite out to control people.

----------


## Vessol

> Murder is aberrant behavior.  TZM will succeed by enlightening enough individuals to engage in civil disobedience against the monetary market system for critical mass to be reached and the new paradigm established.  Engaging in violence is absolutely not an option that TZM is putting on the table, regardless of how many people falsely adhere to the belief that violence is necessary to create this paradigm shift.


So what's going to happen to the minority when you do reach critical mass.

What if I and the other individuals on this board own all the known diamond deposits or other valuable resources? Will you all just go "Well, gee golly darn, I guess we'll have to respect his property rights!" which goes completely against your movements ideas. And any other choice would be the initiation of violence.

The only way you are going to reach critical mass and gain control of the entire worlds resources is through violence.

Also, you never have answered my question:

Centrally planned economies that have removed: private property, currency, and greed. Why has each and every one of these centrally planned economies had massive shortages of the most basic goods and have resulted in the mass starvation of tens of millions of people.

I presume that you know about the Khmer Rouge. Can you tell me what was wrong with the Khmer Rouge?

----------


## Jim Casey

> So what's going to happen to the minority when you do reach critical mass.
> 
> What if I and the other individuals on this board own all the known diamond deposits or other valuable resources? Will you all just go "Well, gee golly darn, I guess we'll have to respect his property rights!" which goes completely against your movements ideas. And any other choice would be the initiation of violence.
> 
> The only way you are going to reach critical mass and gain control of the entire worlds resources is through violence.
> 
> Also, you never have answered my question:
> 
> Centrally planned economies that have removed: private property, currency, and greed. Why has each and every one of these centrally planned economies had massive shortages of the most basic goods and have resulted in the mass starvation of tens of millions of people.
> ...


The initiation of violence that some predict occurs when individuals are backed into a corner with no other option.  The fear of immediately life threatening scarcity won't be prevalent amongst the members of the resource based economy as it is within a monetary market system that inherently rewards aberrant violent behavior.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The initiation of violence that some predict occurs when individuals are backed into a corner with no other option.


Is that why Bush's regime invaded Iraq? Is that why Hitler's regime murdered all those Jews? Because they were backed into a corner with no other option?

----------


## dannno

> The initiation of violence that some predict occurs when individuals are backed into a corner with no other option.  The fear of immediately life threatening scarcity won't be prevalent amongst the members of the resource based economy as it is within a monetary market system that inherently rewards aberrant violent behavior.


But there are plenty examples of societies where competition was taken out of the equation, and violence was used to take food from the farmers, who then starved, so they could feed the people in the city. If you are moving resources around based on need, who is entitled to those resources first?

----------


## Vessol

I'm still wondering what Jim thinks of the Khemer Rouge.

I mean, $#@!. They abolished all private property, currency, and therefor greed. What's not to like about that $#@! Jim?

How could removing greed from the equation possibly create mass starvation when scarcity is a sham created by competition in the first place?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> But there are plenty examples of societies where competition was taken out of the equation, and violence was used to take food from the farmers, who then starved, so they could feed the people in the city. If you are moving resources around based on need, who is entitled to those resources first?


I wonder if your room-mate would think Jim Casey is "pwning" us all right now, if he read this.  What do you think?

----------


## Vessol

> I wonder if your room-mate would think Jim Casey is "pwning" us all right now, if he read this.  What do you think?


Lol.."pwn"

That's be like a football game where the ball runner gets off the field, goes downtown, goes to the shopping mall for a bit and then returns hours later and goes to the end zone and "scores" and declaring that he "pwned" the other team.

----------


## hugolp

> The system is flexible enough to understand that the current level of scientific understanding is not the peak of scientific understanding.  The interdisciplinary teams are volunteers contributing their understanding to developing a constantly improving system, they're not some scary elite out to control people.


Your answering with unconcrete and vague rethoric. You are not fun anymore. The cultish answers get boring after a while.

----------


## Catatonic

> Their movement is the biggest bastardization of the scientific method of our time, imo.  They constantly chant scientific ideals, yet don't apply the scientific method to their own ideas.  They make wild promises, use the word science to convince people, and never actually demonstrate their society on the small scale before demanding ALL resources of the world.


I talked for a while with the guy that's interviewing stefan on Monday and he claims it's supposed to be a 100% voluntary system.  I asked him about this point - the whole thing hinges on this technology, so where is it?  Apparently they think this technology already exists and is suppressed by the powers that be, so once the state is removed it will be available.  Or they want to attract scientific types to develop it themselves.  He wasn't very clear on this point.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I talked for a while with the guy that's interviewing stefan on Monday and he claims it's supposed to be a 100% voluntary system.  I asked him about this point - the whole thing hinges on this technology, so where is it?  Apparently they think this technology already exists and is suppressed by the powers that be, so once the state is removed it will be available.  Or they want to attract scientific types to develop it themselves.  He wasn't very clear on this point.


Well... the way you've worded it certainly sounds like it should be consistent with free-market principles, however, a large portion of TZM movies seem to call for the abolishment of free-markets.

I hope a lot of confusion will be cleared when Stef interviews them on Monday.  I take it Peter will not be joining in?

----------


## ClayTrainor

Someone on the FDR forums just posted this.




> I don't think Jim Casey is an actual advocate for the Zeitgeist movement. I think he is an opponent working to highlight the flaws in the movement by this charade of his. He's engaged in a backwards socratic dialogue, where he hammers home the point by making his opponents ask the questions and he himself resume the role of the fool in order to stop any undecided bystanders from falling into the rhetorical guck of the Zeitgeist movement.


Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Well... the way you've worded it certainly sounds like it should be consistent with free-market principles, however, a large portion of TZM movies seem to call for the abolishment of free-markets.
> 
> I hope a lot of confusion will be cleared when Stef interviews them on Monday.  I take it Peter will not be joining in?


Usually when folks refer to freedom, they're talking about supporting a system that allows a few folks to move huge sums of money around to profit off the contrived scarcity of others.  However pleasantly worded the liberty argument is, that's usually the point being driven home.

----------


## Bman

> Usually when folks refer to freedom, they're talking about supporting a system that allows a few folks to move huge sums of money around to profit off the contrived scarcity of others.  However pleasantly worded the liberty argument is, that's usually the point being driven home.


A few folks?  What's stopping you from being one of the people with huge sums of money in a free system?

Equality does not exist.  It never will.  You cannot promise that the best of everything will be made available to whoever wants it.  On any level you cannot prevent trade for acquiring goods that one desire.  As such you cannot prevent someone from being better off than someone else.  It's a complete pipe dream for many reasons.  Needless to say if it were possible to have anything society would naturally gravitate that way because there would be no restriction on the technology for it to be possible.

----------


## Jim Casey

> A few folks?  What's stopping you from being one of the people with huge sums of money in a free system?
> 
> Equality does not exist.  It never will.  You cannot promise that the best of everything will be made available to whoever wants it.  On any level you cannot prevent trade for acquiring goods that one desire.  As such you cannot prevent someone from being better off than someone else.  It's a complete pipe dream for many reasons.  Needless to say if it were possible to have anything society would naturally gravitate that way because there would be no restriction on the technology for it to be possible.


Some societies have a more equal distribution of wealth than others.  The greater the economic stratification within a society, the more violence and mental illness within a society.

----------


## Bman

> Some societies have a more equal distribution of wealth than others.  The greater the economic stratification within a society, the more violence and mental illness within a society.


You didn't answer the question.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You didn't answer the question.


Nobody needs to acquire lots of money to have access to abundance.  However high I may climb within the monetary market based economy, it is not in my best interests nor the best interests of any individual or generations of future individuals to continue to operate within this paradigm once educated about the beneficial alternative of establishing a global resource based economy.

----------


## Bman

> a global resource based economy.


See this is what I find funny about the whole notion.  How about starting a local resource based economy?  Maybe see if it catches on?  The whole idea that one shoe fits all is ridiculous.  The beauty of a free market solution to problems is that it lets people locally deal with their problems, not having to wait on the hand of god (in your case some global initiative) to come along and take care of them.

The difference between theories is quite simple.  You can exist in ours we cannot exist in yours.  You are being far from practical or accepting of the fact that other people just don't share your vision.

----------


## Jim Casey

> See this is what I find funny about the whole notion.  How about starting a local resource based economy?  Maybe see if it catches on?  The whole idea that one shoe fits all is ridiculous.  The beauty of a free market solution to problems is that it lets people locally deal with their problems, not having to wait on the hand of god (in your case some global initiative) to come along and take care of them.
> 
> The difference between theories is quite simple.  You can exist in ours we cannot exist in yours.  You are being far from practical or accepting of the fact that other people just don't share your vision.


I'm quite practical in understanding that visions change with proper education.  Folks will learn to accept that the resource based economic paradigm is better than the monetary market based paradigm just as folks once learned that the spherical earth paradigm is better than the flat earth paradigm.  It was not necessary nor prudent for folks to accept that the vision of the flat earth model meant circumnavigation was impossible once critical mass was reached for the spherical earth model to become established.

----------


## Bman

> I'm quite practical in understanding that visions change with proper education.  Folks will learn to accept that the resource based economic paradigm is better than the monetary market based paradigm just as folks once learned that the spherical earth paradigm is better than the flat earth paradigm.  It was not necessary nor prudent for folks to accept that the vision of the flat earth model meant circumnavigation was impossible once critical mass was reached for the spherical earth model to become established.


proper education huh?  Lets get to reality.  Resources are finite.  Sooner or later you will run out.  No education will prevent people from realizing that they will have to participate in trade to get what they want.  You cannot possibly make everything available to everyone.  It is impossible even if you raid someone you would consider a hoarder.

----------


## Jim Casey

> proper education huh?  Lets get to reality.  Resources are finite.  Sooner or later you will run out.  No education will prevent people from realizing that they will have to participate in trade to get what they want.  You cannot possibly make everything available to everyone.  It is impossible even if you raid someone you would consider a hoarder.


Folks can be educated in system theory and organize into interdisciplinary teams to design and implement an ever improving system of sustainable use of the earth's resources.  It's not necessary to raid or trade to avoid running out.

----------


## Bman

> Folks can be educated in system theory and organize into interdisciplinary teams to design and implement an ever improving system of sustainable use of the earth's resources.  It's not necessary to raid or trade to avoid running out.


So... jet ski's for everyone?

----------


## V for Voluntary

> I wouldn't care about my computer as much, either, if I could just go downtown to my Zeitgeist robot and get better and faster one for free, lol.
> 
> I want a bunch of amazing free $#@! too... i mean sure, I can understand that... Getting everything you ever dreamed of in abundance would be $#@!ing amazing.





> So..*. apply the scientific method.*  Go test your theory, and get me some free $#@! in abundance, than maybe I'll support your idea.
> 
> But wait... it can't be done til i give you my private property, am i right?  If so, how can you guarantee me that i'll be getting free stuff in return, when i give you my property?


As described here, it sounds fairly similar to a typical 'Nigerian e-mail scam' to me, although less believable.

"Origins:   Even as you read this, the world famous Nigerian Scam (also known as a '4-1-9' or 'Advance Fee Fraud' scheme) is parting yet more of the 'something for nothing' crowd from their money."
http://www.snopes.com/fraud/advancefee/nigeria.asp

----------


## Jim Casey

> So... jet ski's for everyone?


It is inefficient to have folks own their own jet skis.  Nobody uses one 24/7. 



> As described here, it sounds fairly similar to a typical 'Nigerian e-mail scam' to me, although less believable.
> 
> "Origins:   Even as you read this, the world famous Nigerian Scam (also known as a '4-1-9' or 'Advance Fee Fraud' scheme) is parting yet more of the 'something for nothing' crowd from their money."
> http://www.snopes.com/fraud/advancefee/nigeria.asp


Advanced fee fraud and other forms of aberrant behavior naturally result when folks live in a monetary market economy where folks engage in predatory competition to get money to survive.

----------


## V for Voluntary

> Advanced fee fraud and other forms of aberrant behavior naturally result when folks live in a monetary market economy where folks engage in predatory competition to get money to survive.


I believe it is fair to say that you've missed the point that was being made.

That aside, will the elimination of money (monetary market economy) eliminate competition and scarcity?

Secondly, I'd like to see your response to this post. Perhaps I missed it.




> So, why in every centrally planned economy has there been mass starvation?
> 
> If, as you say, scarcity is a farce and there is an abundance of resources everywhere that is repressed because of our current system that rewards greed:
> 
> Then why in every single centrally planned economy, *where profit was removed from the equation*, did tens of millions of people starve to death?


In addition, concerning the following -




> Within the RBE paradigm, nobody owns resources, the tribes don't own their land, so nobody is taking anything from anyone.





> Hey Jim, could you post your address here? Afterall, what are you worried about? Someone might take your car, or your clothes, maybe even the free market produced computer that you are using currently. But, these are all the trapping of private property so who cares about them? Do you lock your door at night?





> Since I still participate within the monetary market system, I still defend my property from the violent aberrant behavior


Here, are you claiming that a person showing up at your home and taking your property to be engaging in "violent aberrant behavior"?

Also, do you consider a variety of ideas being proposed with the intention of influencing others competition? And if so, do you consider the Zeitgeist Movement itself competition based?

Lastly, do you consider science itself to be inherently opposed to competition?

----------


## Jim Casey

> I believe it is fair to say that you've missed the point that was being made.
> 
> That aside, will the elimination of money (monetary market economy) eliminate competition and scarcity?


The system that replaces the monetary market must reduce the need to compete to survive.  The focus is on seeing humans as a family that cooperates rather than individuals who mistakingly replace the human value with the money value.



> Secondly, I'd like to see your response to this post. Perhaps I missed it.


The profit motive has never been removed and replaced with a scientifically designed global system.  All previous societies that have attempted to replace the profit motive were in competition with other societies that operated on a profit motive, they did not exist in a world where resource distribution operated outside the monetary market paradigm.



> In addition, concerning the following -
> 
> Here, are you claiming that a person showing up at your home and taking your property to be engaging in "violent aberrant behavior"?
> 
> Also, do you consider a variety of ideas being proposed with the intention of influencing others competition? And if so, do you consider the Zeitgeist Movement itself competition based?
> 
> Lastly, do you consider science itself to be inherently opposed to competition?


The scientific method is the means to determine the best solution according to the data presented.  Variables within the data analyzed don't compete because the system itself determines what solution is optimal.  I consider TZM to be education based rather than competition based.

----------


## V for Voluntary

> The system that replaces the monetary market must reduce


So competition and scarcity will still exist? Apologies if I was not clear enough..




> The profit motive has never been removed and being replaced with a scientifically designed global system.  All previous societies that have attempted to replace the profit motive were in competition with other societies that operated on a profit motive, they did not exist in a world where resource distribution operated outside the monetary market paradigm.


So the only way for the Resource Monopolized Economy to function properly is if money is eliminated globally? If a single 'nation' continues to use money, the RME system will fail?

Global implementation is the only test that makes the Resource Monopolized Economy falsifiable?




> The scientific method is the means to determine the best solution according to the data presented.  Variables within the data analyzed don't compete because the system itself determines what solution is optimal.


You do not believe competing scientific theories exist?

Do competing scientific theories hinder the progress of science?




> I consider TZM to be education based rather than competition based.


You are attempting to influence people into holding ideas other than the ideas they hold now by selling them a better idea. This process of education involves competing with other ideas, no?

The following is a point you did not address, so I will repeat it.




> Within the RBE paradigm, nobody owns resources, the tribes don't own their land, so nobody is taking anything from anyone.





> Hey Jim, could you post your address here? Afterall, what are you worried about? Someone might take your car, or your clothes, maybe even the free market produced computer that you are using currently. But, these are all the trapping of private property so who cares about them? Do you lock your door at night?





> Since I still participate within the monetary market system, I still defend my property from the violent aberrant behavior


Here, are you claiming that a person showing up at your home and taking your property to be engaging in "violent aberrant behavior"?

Lastly, are you open to the idea of initiating violence against others to impose a one-child policy, as Peter Joseph has expressed?

"Um, if things get really really bad, meaning when the collapse begins to occur more so, *I might not be against governments imposing one child policies*. Because things can get really really bad, where *we have to start going down the barrel of really bad ideas* before we can come back up and get on the correct path again."
~Peter Joseph

While on the subject, do you know if Jacque Fresco is also open to this idea?

"The Venus Project
Take a tour of our research center, hear *Jacque Fresco* speak, watch videos, etc."

"You know, children are a pain in the ass. They're not pleasant. They can't say anything new."
~Jacque Fresco

----------


## ClayTrainor

> "Um, if things get really really bad, meaning when the collapse begins to occur more so, *I might not be against governments imposing one child policies*. Because things can get really really bad, where *we have to start going down the barrel of really bad ideas* before we can come back up and get on the correct path again."
> ~Peter Joseph




That's some crazy double think.  He might support one child policies, while at the same time admitting it's a "really bad idea"....

----------


## V for Voluntary

> That's some crazy double think.  He might support one child policies, while at the same time admitting it's a "really bad idea"....


As well, it possibly answers Stefan's request for a commitment to the non-aggression principle, as he already has one child. If Stefan decides to have another, Peter Joseph seems open to the idea of violently stepping in to prevent that at some point in the future.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> The goal is to replace the monetary market system on a global scale.  Transitory replacements are only successful as other means of challenging the system.


So what if people don't participate in the monetary market system? Like tribes in the Amazon that I was talking about. They've never heard of money, computers, economics, government, etc. You're saying you're going to go in and forcibly take their things and assimilate them into your cyber utopia.  

And what about the rest of us who participate in the system but don't like TZM alternative? And don't say wait and see. Tell me, are we all going to get happy pills that will make us change our ways of thinking, because I can guarantee you taking away people's private property when it's all they've ever known isn't going to happen without killing lots of people. Just admit that for TZM to come to fruition a lot of people who will never agree with you are going to have to die or somehow otherwise be given some kind of medication or something that will force them to change.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

And also TZM doesn't talk about animals. Will we have to give up our pets? And will we be able to eat meat if all of our food is grown in circular farms? I haven't found any way for meat to be grown yet.

----------


## dannno

> And also TZM doesn't talk about animals. Will we have to give up our pets? And will we be able to eat meat if all of our food is grown in circular farms? I haven't found any way for meat to be grown yet.


Dunno about pets, but they actually plan to build skyfarms that will be like skyscrapers with windows, it will be like a multi-level greenhouse using hydroponics. The side of the building that is predominantly shaded will supposedly contain animals is what I've heard.. but after thinking about it, it takes something like 10 times as much calories of vegetables to produce the same amount of calories of meat (because animals eat vegetables).. So you'd have to have something like 10 stories of vegetables just to feed a couple half-stories worth of animals.. and then at that point those stories worth of vegetables are GONE, can't be eaten by the people.. so I imagine meat eating would be discouraged as it is less efficient, I dunno.

----------


## hugolp

> Dunno about pets, but they actually plan to build skyfarms that will be like skyscrapers with windows, it will be like a multi-level greenhouse using hydroponics. The side of the building that is predominantly shaded will supposedly contain animals is what I've heard.. but after thinking about it, it takes something like 10 times as much calories of vegetables to produce the same amount of calories of meat (because animals eat vegetables).. So you'd have to have something like 10 stories of vegetables just to feed a couple half-stories worth of animals.. and then at that point those stories worth of vegetables are GONE, can't be eaten by the people.. so I imagine meat eating would be discouraged as it is less efficient, I dunno.


Not to worry. The Computer will decide.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Not to worry. The Computer will decide.


Like I said, piss off your toaster and get liquidated.

----------


## pcosmar

Doesn't the navel gazing and fantasy utopia discussion belong in Philosophy Sub Forum?

----------


## teacherone

I get it now.

Jim Casey IS the Venus Super Computer.

IT'S ALIVE!

----------


## Catatonic

> Well... the way you've worded it certainly sounds like it should be consistent with free-market principles, however, a large portion of TZM movies seem to call for the abolishment of free-markets.
> 
> I hope a lot of confusion will be cleared when Stef interviews them on Monday.  I take it Peter will not be joining in?


Right, they are against free markets, they want a centrally planned economy through some kind of super technology.  But that doesn't mean you have to take part in their system.  They don't intend to start off the bat as a global system, that's something they want to work towards, by showing that their system is the best, so people voluntarily join.

That's the way it was explained to me, anyway.  I expect it to flop, and when an economy flops, who knows what the fallout will be.

----------


## Jim Casey

> And also TZM doesn't talk about animals. Will we have to give up our pets? And will we be able to eat meat if all of our food is grown in circular farms? I haven't found any way for meat to be grown yet.


Three dimensional printers can actually print meat.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Three dimensional printers can actually print meat.


Ummm....what the $#@!?

----------


## Vessol

> Ummm....what the $#@!?


You don't understand because your mind is stuck in the market economy paradigm.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> You don't understand because your mind is stuck in the market economy paradigm.


snark +rep!

----------


## Jim Casey

Three dimensional printers can build houses too.

----------


## Vessol

> Three dimensional printers can build houses too.


How about houses made of meat? Can it do that?

----------


## Jim Casey

> How about houses made of meat? Can it do that?


What's even more interesting is that all the parts that combine to make the 3d printer can also be printed by one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

----------


## Vessol

> What's even more interesting is that all the parts that combine to make the 3d printer can also be printed by one.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing


If you can promise me a house made of meat, I will abandon all my prior arguments and completely agree to the Zeitgeist movement and follow everything that Peter Joesph says.

And none of that cheap filler meat with additives. I'm talking about steaks, ribs, smoked sausages.

----------


## Jim Casey

> If you can promise me a house made of meat, I will abandon all my prior arguments and completely agree to the Zeitgeist movement and follow everything that Peter Joesph says.
> 
> And none of that cheap filler meat with additives. I'm talking about steaks, ribs, smoked sausages.


I promise you a house of meat.  Now go join your local chapter.

----------


## Vessol

> I promise you a house of meat.  Now go join your local chapter.


*salute* Yes sir!

----------


## Jim Casey

> So what if people don't participate in the monetary market system? Like tribes in the Amazon that I was talking about. They've never heard of money, computers, economics, government, etc. You're saying you're going to go in and forcibly take their things and assimilate them into your cyber utopia.  
> 
> And what about the rest of us who participate in the system but don't like TZM alternative? And don't say wait and see. Tell me, are we all going to get happy pills that will make us change our ways of thinking, because I can guarantee you taking away people's private property when it's all they've ever known isn't going to happen without killing lots of people. Just admit that for TZM to come to fruition a lot of people who will never agree with you are going to have to die or somehow otherwise be given some kind of medication or something that will force them to change.


There is no need for folks to engage in massive amounts of violence for the concept of private property to become obsolete.  Just like the concept of private property in America evolved during the civil rights movement because of widespread civil disobedience, a resource based economy can be established globally using similar methodology.

----------


## hugolp

> There is no need for folks to engage in massive amounts of violence for the concept of private property to become obsolete.  Just like the concept of private property in America evolved during the civil rights movement because of widespread civil disobedience,


The civil rights movement was initially libertarian and did not demand any change to property laws. Initially the protesters only demanded to end with the unjust and racist laws so they could have the same righst. It was later when the movement became popular that it started to be politically benefitial to join and politicians started jumping into the wagon and they messed it, even making some initial civil rights movement activists abandon the cause.




> a resource based economy can be established globally using similar methodology.


The Computer will provide. Amen.

¿Do you realize that if the computer does not provide (and you have not proved that it can) you are promoting a disaster?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Three dimensional printers can actually print meat.


lolz

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Doesn't the navel gazing and fantasy utopia discussion belong in Philosophy Sub Forum?


Are you saying all "limited constitutional government" discussion belongs in philosophy too?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you can promise me a house made of meat, I will abandon all my prior arguments and completely agree to the Zeitgeist movement and follow everything that Peter Joesph says.
> 
> And none of that cheap filler meat with additives. I'm talking about steaks, ribs, smoked sausages.


Y'all are a riot sometimes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you saying all "limited constitutional government" discussion belongs in philosophy too?


Ha!  Well done! +rep

----------


## Jim Casey

> The civil rights movement was initially libertarian and did not demand any change to property laws. Initially the protesters only demanded to end with the unjust and racist laws so they could have the same righst. It was later when the movement became popular that it started to be politically benefitial to join and politicians started jumping into the wagon and they messed it, even making some initial civil rights movement activists abandon the cause.


The civil rights movement did challenge the concept of property rights for many individuals, as does TZM.  The establishing of a resource based economy will be a watershed event in the history of mankind.  It will be the greatest civil achievement ever, transforming the concept of property rights even more than emancipation and civil rights has.

----------


## Bman

> Three dimensional printers can actually print meat.


Four dimensional printers can make it so you never go hungry...  ever,  Eat once be sustained for your lifetime!

----------


## Jim Casey

> Four dimensional printers can make it so you never go hungry...  ever,  Eat once be sustained for your lifetime!


3D printing hinders the profit motive for many powerful individuals in the monetary market economy, which is why access is limited, just as many other forms of automation are restricted due to the fact that their efficiency and usefulness are counterproductive to a system that requires planned obsolescence.

----------


## hugolp

> The civil rights movement did challenge the concept of property rights for many individuals, as does TZM.  The establishing of a resource based economy will be a watershed event in the history of mankind.  It will be the greatest civil achievement ever, transforming the concept of property rights even more than emancipation and civil rights has.


You just repeated your false statment and added some of your pseudoreligious chanting.




> 3D printing hinders the profit motive for many powerful individuals in the monetary market economy, which is why access is limited, just as many other forms of automation are restricted due to the fact that their efficiency and usefulness are counterproductive to a system that requires planned obsolescence.


3D printers are not popular because any REAL 3D printer is $#@!ing expensive. The oys you see in the inernet are fun and all but not useful for a big part of tasks.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> There you go: http://ivo.co.za/2007/08/09/libertarian-iq/ (its a repost and the link to the original source seems broken).


This was definitely worth a read!  Thanks for posting this.  It kinda deserves it's own thread, really...


Excerpt:




> Just as programmers have a model of computation, libertarians have what I call a model of interaction. Just as a programmer can “play computer” by simulating how specific lines of code will change program state, a libertarian can “play society” by simulating how specific actions will change societal state. The libertarian model of interaction cuts across economic, political, cultural, and social issues. For just about any given law, for example, a libertarian can tell you exactly how such a law will affect society (minimum wage laws create unemployment by setting a lower-bound on entry-level wages, drug prohibition artificially inflates drug prices which leads to violent turf wars, etc.). As another example, for any given social goal, a libertarian will be able to tell you the problems generated by having government try to achieve that goal and will tell you how such a goal can be achieved in a libertarian society.I believe this is qualitatively different from other predictive models because of the breadth of the model and the focus on transitions (both of which are also true of programming). On newsgroups I often see questions … [that] … libertarians almost always quickly answer by saying, “I’ll tell you exactly what would happen…” And, surprisingly, the libertarians tend to give the same answer in most cases.
> 
> I think most people find this odd about libertarians. They understand how an economist might be able to predict the effect of a certain law on the economy or how a social scientist might be able to predict how drug legalization might affect the ghettos, but they don’t understand how somebody could predict all of these things, especially someone who has no formal training. Libertarians, on the other hand, don’t seem to understand how someone could fail to have such a model of interaction… The nonlibertarians have no comprehensive model of interaction, and as a result, they can’t communicate in a meaningful way with those who do. Their attention is always focused on misleading superficial problems rather than on the underlying causes of such problems.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You just repeated your false statment and added some of your pseudoreligious chanting.


The civil rights movement did challenge property rights, as did emancipation.  Whether or not the movements were libertarian or not, the end result is that the concept of property rights was transformed.



> 3D printers are not popular because any REAL 3D printer is $#@!ing expensive. The oys you see in the inernet are fun and all but not useful for a big part of tasks.


3D printing is not expensive at all in terms of the amount of resources it takes to produce.  It's only expensive in terms of profitability within the monetary market system.

----------


## Travlyr

> The civil rights movement did challenge property rights, as did emancipation.  Whether or not the movements were libertarian or not, the end result is that the concept of property rights was transformed.


That is nonsense. All wealth comes from the land. Whoever owns land can become wealthy. Property rights promote prosperity and security. It is dumb to give-up property rights... simply stupid... and enslaving.

----------


## Jim Casey

> That is nonsense. All wealth comes from the land. Whoever owns land can become wealthy. Property rights promote prosperity and security. It is dumb to give-up property rights... simply stupid... and enslaving.


Nobody needs to own land to have access to the wealth of the land or the prosperity and security that comes from the earth.  The concept of property rights was at the forefront amongst those who opposed emancipation and civil rights.

----------


## Travlyr

Whoever owns/controls the land controls the resources. You advocate resources in the hands of a few elite. Resources in the hands of individuals promote liberty and prosperity. Resources in the hands of controlling elite is tyranny. Property owners can be free, prosperous, and secure. You don't have a clue what individual liberty is about and you have proved over and over again that you advocate for tyranny.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Whoever owns/controls the land controls the resources. You advocate resources in the hands of a few elite. Resources in the hands of individuals promote liberty and prosperity. Resources in the hands of controlling elite is tyranny. Property owners can be free, prosperous, and secure. You don't have a clue what individual liberty is about and you have proved over and over again that you advocate for tyranny.


Folks lived in tyranny under the hands of property owners, the long history of slavery proves that.  In a resource based economy, anybody can contribute to the process of resource management as a member of the interdisciplinary teams.  It's not about some scary elite tyrants pulling all the strings.

----------


## Travlyr

> Folks lived in tyranny under the hands of property owners, the long history of slavery proves that.  In a resource based economy, anybody can contribute to the process of resource management as a member of the interdisciplinary teams.  It's not about some scary elite tyrants pulling all the strings.


And freemen who owned land became wealthy. Land, air, and water are birthrights for everyone. Individual ownership of land promotes liberty, prosperity and security. Whoever tries to end individual property rights promotes tyranny. I grew up on a farm with plenty of gardens, livestock and grain. We did not have to rely on anyone, yet we did trade with neighbors. I am not scared of elite tyrants, but they steal wealth and will not be tolerated. If you don't want to own property, then don't. If you come to my place to take my property away from me, you'll be sorry.

----------


## Jim Casey

> And freemen who owned land became wealthy. Land, air, and water are birthrights for everyone. Individual ownership of land promotes liberty, prosperity and security. Whoever tries to end individual property rights promotes tyranny. I grew up on a farm with plenty of gardens, livestock and grain. We did not have to rely on anyone, yet we did trade with neighbors. I am not scared of elite tyrants, but they steal wealth and will not be tolerated. If you don't want to own property, then don't. If you come to my place to take my property away from me, you'll be sorry.


With finite resources on the planet, there is only so much land and water for so many.  Within a monetary market system, violence is rewarded as a means to have access to resources that meet the needs of survival.  When survival is threatened, the concept of property rights isn't respected.

----------


## Travlyr

> With finite resources on the planet, there is only so much land and water for so many.  Within a monetary market system, violence is rewarded as a means to have access to resources that meet the needs of survival.  When survival is threatened, the concept of property rights isn't respected.


What do you mean by monetary market system? When we traded with our neighbors, there was no violence. How does trading equate to violence?

----------


## silverhandorder

Sorry the computer will not provide...

----------


## Jim Casey

> What do you mean by monetary market system? When we traded with our neighbors, there was no violence. How does trading equate to violence?


Trading does lead to violence when artificial scarcity is imposed to generate more profit.  In order to continue increasing profit, which is also necessary to continue paying interest, any means necessary to continue the system of trading will be enacted, even if it means denying meeting the basic survival needs to others to the point where their violent behavior would not only be rewarded, but necessary to obtain access to the resources that are being denied through trade in the monetary market system.

----------


## Bman

"artificial scarcity"

some real examples?

----------


## Jim Casey

> "artificial scarcity"
> 
> some real examples?


Diamonds are the most prominent example, anything denied through patents provide a myriad of examples.  There is no small amount of evidence to support the assertion that oil is made artificially scarce for profit.  The intrinsic obsolescence that is essential to maximizing profits for manufactures of nearly all products in the market are a form of artificial scarcity.  Keeping workers employed in jobs that could be replaced with automation for the sake of keeping the labor for wages game going is another form of artificial scarcity.

----------


## silverhandorder

What about diamonds? The said monopoly failed horribly and today we can make diamonds cheaply.

Most libertarians after Rothbard do not support patents so more or less you have a problem with a particular subset of market supporters. 

Oil is scarce stating that is not, not going to convince anyone who has no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## Travlyr

> Trading does lead to violence when artificial scarcity is imposed to generate more profit.  In order to continue increasing profit, which is also necessary to continue paying interest, any means necessary to continue the system of trading will be enacted, even if it means denying meeting the basic survival needs to others to the point where their violent behavior would not only be rewarded, but necessary to obtain access to the resources that are being denied through trade in the monetary market system.




There is plenty of land and water. If individuals were allowed to homestead the federal lands, scarcity would be limited. Allowing people to own land promotes purpose, prosperity, security and liberty. Your system promotes poverty and enslavement.

Two questions:
Do you understand what is a "monetary market system?"Do you understand what is a "resource based economy?"

----------


## __27__

> With finite resources on the planet, there is only so much land and water for so many.  Within a monetary market system, violence is rewarded as a means to have access to resources that meet the needs of survival.  When survival is threatened, the concept of property rights isn't respected.


Actually at current:

36,79424000 acres / ~ 7,000,000,000 humans = 5.26 acres for each individual man woman and child currently inhabiting this planet.

You apparently are under the false perception that a market economy recognizes land mass accrual.  Not any dedicated Austrian that I have come across, as most clearly understand the basic principle of land use (or property use) requirements.  If you discard property it can no longer be properly defended as yours excepting as it may be enforced by some state with a monopoly on force.  In nature it is clear that land that goes unused is no longer your property, nor can you claim any land to which you are not currently mixing with your labor.  When you consider that the majority of earths population clusters itself into areas with mere fractions of an acre per human, and that each member of a family is not going to simultaneously live on separate lands, the land available for homesteading in fact is even higher.


See Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty:  http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/six.asp




> ONE OF THE MOST commonly derided constructions of classical economic theory is Crusoe Economics, the analysis of an isolated man face-to-face with nature. And yet, this seemingly unrealistic model, as I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere, has highly important and even indispensable uses.[1] It serves to isolate man as against nature, thus gaining clarity by abstracting at the beginning from interpersonal relations. Later on, this man/nature analysis can be extended and applied to the real world. The bringing in of Friday or of one or more other persons, after analysis of strictly Robinsonian isolation, then serves to show how the addition of other persons affects the discussion. These conclusions can then also be applied to the contemporary world. Thus, the abstraction of analyzing a few persons interacting on an island enables a dear perception of the basic truths of interpersonal relations, truths which remain obscure if we insist on looking first at the contemporary world only whole and of a piece.
> 
>      If Crusoe economics can and does supply the indispensable groundwork for the entire structure of economics and praxeologythe broad, formal analysis of human actiona similar procedure should be able to do the same thing for social philosophy, for the analysis of the fundamental truths of the nature of man vis-à-vis the nature of the world into which he is born, as well as the world of other men. Specifically, it can aid greatly in solving such problems of political philosophy as the nature and role of liberty property, and violence.[2]
> 
>      Let us consider Crusoe, who has landed on his island, and, to simplify matters, has contracted amnesia. What inescapable facts does Crusoe confront? He finds, for one thing, himself, with the primordial fact of his own consciousness and his own body. He finds, second, the natural world around him, the nature-given habitat and resources which economists sum up in the term land.[3] He finds also that, in seeming contrast with animals, he does not possess any innate instinctual knowledge impelling him into the proper paths for the satisfaction of his needs and desires. In fact, he begins his life in this world by knowing literally nothing; all knowledge must be learned by him. He comes to learn that he has numerous ends, purposes which he desires to achieve, many of which he must achieve to sustain his life: food, shelter, clothing, etc. After the basic needs are satisfied, he finds more advanced wants for which to aim. To satisfy any or all of these wants which he evaluates in accordance with their respective importance to him, Crusoe must also learn how to achieve them; he must, in short, acquire technological knowledge, or recipes.
> 
>      Crusoe, then, has manifold wants which he tries to satisfy, ends that he strives to attain. Some of these ends may be attained with minimal effort on his part; if the island is so structured, he may be able to pick edible berries off nearby bushes. In such cases, his consumption of a good or service may be obtained quickly and almost instantaneously. But for almost all of his wants, Crusoe fids that the natural world about him does not satisfy them immediately and instantaneously; he is not, in short, in a Garden of Eden. To achieve his ends, he must, as quickly and productively as he can, take the nature-given resources and transform them into useful objects, shapes, and places most useful to himso that he can satisfy his wants.
> 
>      In short, he must (a) choose his goals; (b) learn how to achieve them by using nature-given resources; and then (c) exert his labor energy to transform these resources into more useful shapes and places: i.e., into capital goods, and finally into consumer goods that he can directly consume. Thus, Crusoe may build himself, out of the given natural raw materials, an axe (capital good) with which to chop down trees, in order to construct a cabin (consumer good). Or he may build a net (capital good) with which to catch fish (consumer good). In each case, he employs his learned technological knowledge to exert his labor effort in transforming land into capital goods and eventually into consumer goods. This process of transformation of land resources constitutes his production. In short, Crusoe must produce before he can consume, and so that he may consume. And by this process of production, of transformation, man shapes and alters his nature-given environment to his own ends, instead of, animal-like, being simply determined by that environment.
> ...

----------


## __27__

> Diamonds are the most prominent example, anything denied through patents provide a myriad of examples.  There is no small amount of evidence to support the assertion that oil is made artificially scarce for profit.  The intrinsic obsolescence that is essential to maximizing profits for manufactures of nearly all products in the market are a form of artificial scarcity.  Keeping workers employed in jobs that could be replaced with automation for the sake of keeping the labor for wages game going is another form of artificial scarcity.


What you've described can ONLY be achieved with a state granted the monopoly on force and willing to use it's violence for the protection of business partners.  State monopoly on force=/=free market.  You continue to demonstrate your inability to grasp the most basic concepts of economics or to compare and contrast two vastly different systems, vis a vis ~ state v. non-state.

----------


## Jim Casey

> What about diamonds? The said monopoly failed horribly and today we can make diamonds cheaply.
> 
> Most libertarians after Rothbard do not support patents so more or less you have a problem with a particular subset of market supporters. 
> 
> Oil is scarce stating that is not, not going to convince anyone who has no idea what you are talking about.


Whether or not libertarians agree with patenting does not prevent it from naturally occurring within any monetary market based economy.  The state itself naturally manifests within a monetary market system, designed by those who have the most money within the system to serve the interest of maintaining and increasing their status within the stratified structure.

----------


## hugolp

> The civil rights movement did challenge property rights, as did emancipation.  Whether or not the movements were libertarian or not, the end result is that the concept of property rights was transformed.


Its like a machine that keep repeating the same ideas no matter what.




> 3D printing is not expensive at all in terms of the amount of resources it takes to produce.  It's only expensive in terms of profitability within the monetary market system.


Yes it is. You have no idea what you are talking about. The 3D printers you can build yourself in the internet are toys compared to the real things that require a lot of resources and precission. Also, this 3D printers are not efficient to mass produce. Once you are mass producing its a lot more effective to build a mchine specialized in producing one object.

Btw, I forgot to tell you but you answered the computer bug question wrong because you have no idea about programming, even when you believe a program is going to solve all your problems. If The Computer has a bug, it does not matter if you have backups because they will have the bug too. Its the same program.

----------


## Jim Casey

> What you've described can ONLY be achieved with a state granted the monopoly on force and willing to use it's violence for the protection of business partners.  State monopoly on force=/=free market.  You continue to demonstrate your inability to grasp the most basic concepts of economics or to compare and contrast two vastly different systems, vis a vis ~ state v. non-state.


The state will always manifest within a monetary market economy.  It is unavoidable, because the wealthiest few within the stratified social structure that always manifest within the system will design and implement the state to maintain and increase their status.

----------


## hugolp

> Whether or not libertarians agree with patenting does not prevent it from naturally occurring within any monetary market based economy.  The state itself naturally manifests within a monetary market system, designed by those who have the most money within the system to serve the interest of maintaining and increasing their status within the stratified structure.


You know this is marxists theory right? All you are repeating is marxism, but you keep saying its not.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Its like a machine that keep repeating the same ideas no matter what.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. You have no idea what you are talking about. The 3D printers you can build yourself in the internet are toys compared to the real things that require a lot of resources and precission. Also, this 3D printers are not efficient to mass produce. Once you are mass producing its a lot more effective to build a mchine specialized in producing one object.
> 
> Btw, I forgot to tell you but you answered the computer bug question wrong because you have no idea about programming, even when you believe a program is going to solve all your problems. If The Computer has a bug, it does not matter if you have backups because they will have the bug too. Its the same program.


The only way to know how much of any product can be produced within the monetary market system is with pricing mechanisms based on profitability.  It has nothing to do with solving real human problems or contributing to real human value, it only has to do with appeasing money value.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You know this is marxists theory right? All you are repeating is marxism, but you keep saying its not.


Folks who assert that the earth is spherical in shape usually aren't referred to as Copernicans anymore, nor are they accused of repeating Copernican's theory.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The civil rights movement did challenge property rights, as did emancipation.  Whether or not the movements were libertarian or not, the end result is that the concept of property rights was transformed.
> *
> 3D printing is not expensive at all in terms of the amount of resources it takes to produce.  It's only expensive in terms of profitability within the monetary market system.*


What?  I've been to a print shop and studied prepress.  Can you show me a 3d printing system that does not require a huge expense to run?  The plates alone would be incredibly expensive.   A simple 4 color offset press is damned expensive, so I imagine a 3d system would be much more so.  Not trying to be rude, I'm just not familiar with 3d printing.

----------


## silverhandorder

Let's assume the state naturally arises in market economy. In that case the market economy naturally arises in nature. You can not stop markets and trade from happening in RBE. The second I need something some one else has and can offer them something else RBE is dead. For example a really good singer who is also into collecting different model cars. RBE would not allow him to have more then one car for transport only. Well to RBE's unfortunate luck the guy can trade his singing ability for the cars of his neighbors. Then soon RBE will have to deal with increasing segments of population doing this because they value things that RBE can not provide.

----------


## __27__

> The state will always manifest within a monetary market economy.  It is unavoidable, because the wealthiest few within the stratified social structure that always manifest within the system will design and implement the state to maintain and increase their status.


Look, you're passion is admirable, but you are clearly over your head.  Whether or not you have paper money or any other object you wish to describe as 'money' is irrelevant.  Your claim goes tenfold for the movement you purport to be the answer.  If you 'get rid of' money, something will take it's place.  Whether it's chicken feed, cigarettes, bread, milk, cheese, I don't care, your population will barter.  Moreover, you've given the 'evil few' you think will somehow simultaneously overthrow 7 Billion individuals not only the framework, but the moral impetus to do exactly that to your system.  They will simply waltz in, take over your fancy little 'teams', and now will have the 'moral' justification you have brainwashed into people about the humanitarianism of the system to defend them.  You are creating the single largest power structure the world has ever seen, one monolithic centrally controlled populace free for the taking.  You are Adolf Hitler's wet dream come true, and he will find you.

----------


## Travlyr

I repeat... 



> Two questions:
> Do you understand what is a "monetary market system?"Do you understand what is a "resource based economy?"


If so, then what do they mean?

----------


## silverhandorder

> The only way to know how much of any product can be produced within the monetary market system is with pricing mechanisms based on profitability.  It has nothing to do with solving real human problems or contributing to real human value, it only has to do with appeasing money value.


This is patently false. Prices specifically solve the human problems. They make it possible to value different types of labor and different types of preferences. Price reflects a persons subjective valuation. You are quite clueless about what you criticize.

----------


## Jim Casey

> This is patently false. Prices specifically solve the human problems. They make it possible to value different types of labor and different types of preferences. Price reflects a persons subjective valuation. You are quite clueless about what you criticize.


Prices are entirely objective.  The objective is profitability.  The human value is not a part of the equation.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I repeat... 
> 
> If so, then what do they mean?


Here's a good 7 minutes that describe the RBE.  It's the scientific method applied to social concern.



The monetary market system is what we currently use, where money value determines resource distribution.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Prices are entirely objective.  The objective is profitability.  The human value is not a part of the equation.


No you are wrong. Every human has his own subjective valuation. A price reflects how much desire one has to have compared to others to obtain something.

So if I value a loaf of bread at 4$ and some one else values it at 6$ clearly they have greater need for it then me.

----------


## hugolp

> Prices are entirely objective.  The objective is profitability.


Hahahaha, objective and objetive have different meaning in both sentences. Yet you linked them together as if you were saying something very clever.

In the first sentence objetive means its not subjective. In the second objective means intention.




> The human value is not a part of the equation.


Then you add some caring sounding sentence to wrap it all, and voilá: pseudo-ideology.

----------


## Travlyr

> The monetary market system is what we currently use, where money value determines resource distribution.


What we currently endure is counterfeiting of money by central banks. Read Ron Paul's book "End The Fed", or Murray Rothbard's book, "The Mystery of Banking." Prices are totally distorted. Consequently, when you refer to the monetary market system, you are referring to a system of theft. Do you understand this?

----------


## Jim Casey

> No you are wrong. Every human has his own subjective valuation. A price reflects how much desire one has to have compared to others to obtain something.
> 
> So if I value a loaf of bread at 4$ and some one else values it at 6$ clearly they have greater need for it then me.





> Hahahaha, objective and objetive have different meaning in both sentences. Yet you linked them together as if you were saying something very clever.
> 
> In the first sentence objetive means its not subjective. In the second objective means intention.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you add some caring sounding sentence to wrap it all, and voilá: pseudo-ideology.


The subjective nature of pricing is only valid within the structure of profitability.  Accessibility is the major factor in profitability.  Human necessity never enters the equation.  Restricting accessibility increases profitability, not increasing necessity.



> What we currently endure is counterfeiting of money by central banks. Read Ron Paul's book "End The Fed", or Murray Rothbard's book, "The Mystery of Banking." Prices are totally distorted. Consequently, when you refer to the monetary market system, you are referring to a system of theft. Do you understand this?


Pricing will always be distorted in a monetary market system to maximize profitability, whether the means is federal reserve policies changing currency values or direct central planning of conquered countries.  Price distortion is a means of continuing the monetary market system, and any means necessary will be utilized to continue paying the interest on debt that continues to increase.  Ending the fed or the state won't change much because those with the most money will always create means of maintaining and increasing their status using whatever replacements would be best for their interests.

----------


## silverhandorder

You are talking nonsense. I am done talking to you after this reply.

People consider others all the time when they subjectively valuate things. For example giving discounts to friends. Putting up different social initiatives in the business model. The fact that you simply ignore my arguments means two things you are either brain dead or trolling either way I am done wasting time on you. For anyone with an open mind this discussion was decided 20 pages ago.

edit: and profits are only extension of rewards that people give to those that provide goods they need. Market eliminates profits over long term and always makes people search for other ways to satisfy the consumers.

----------


## dannno

As far as software goes, I've hard from some Zeitgeisters that they want the program to be open source, and that this will help ensure that one person or group cannot take advantage of the system.

Discuss.

----------


## __27__

> As far as software goes, I've hard from some Zeitgeisters that they want the program to be open source, and that this will help ensure that one person or group cannot take advantage of the system.
> 
> Discuss.


How does open source coincide with a centrally planned resource based economy?  Are these 'open source' users clearing their moves on the software with any of the 'specialized teams'?  If so, they are window dressings, nothing more.  If not, the entire basis of Zeitgeist has been subverted by their own plan.  Open source is an inherently market based ideal.

----------


## Travlyr

> Pricing will always be distorted in a monetary market system to maximize profitability, whether the means is federal reserve policies changing currency values or direct central planning of conquered countries.  Price distortion is a means of continuing the monetary market system, and any means necessary will be utilized to continue paying the interest on debt that continues to increase.  Ending the fed or the state won't change much because those with the most money will always create means of maintaining and increasing their status using whatever replacements would be best for their interests.


Have you ever raised a garden? Do you have any idea the work involved? Pricing is based on work input. I can offer you rotten tomatoes cheaper than fresh ripe tomatoes because most people like value. Pricing is determined by value. You are a brainwashed individual which is good for me because I can take advantage of you, but you are bad for people who believe your bull$#@!.

----------


## sevin

This is the most entertaining and educational thread I've seen here in several months. Thanks!

----------


## hugolp

> The subjective nature of pricing is only valid within the structure of profitability.  Accessibility is the major factor in profitability.  Human necessity never enters the equation. Restricting accessibility increases profitability, not increasing necessity.


As a always you dont answer and just repeat your sentences without giving a $#@! if they make sense or not.

----------


## Jim Casey

> edit: and profits are only extension of rewards that people give to those that provide goods they need. Market eliminates profits over long term and always makes people search for other ways to satisfy the consumers.


The elimination of profits ultimately means the elimination of the monetary market system.  Then it will be replaced with a RBE.



> As far as software goes, I've hard from some Zeitgeisters that they want the program to be open source, and that this will help ensure that one person or group cannot take advantage of the system.
> 
> Discuss.


The code is to be designed for scientific system results.  Certainly the code will evolve through proper education. 



> How does open source coincide with a centrally planned resource based economy?  Are these 'open source' users clearing their moves on the software with any of the 'specialized teams'?  If so, they are window dressings, nothing more.  If not, the entire basis of Zeitgeist has been subverted by their own plan.  Open source is an inherently market based ideal.


The market based ideals are what is currently accessible within the monetary market based economy.  Systems design and management of the past won't subvert and hinder future systems design and management any more than cartography of the past subverted or hindered cartography following the acceptance of the idea that the earth is spherical.

----------


## Bman

Have a question for you JC.

Could you explain living arrangements in this idea?

----------


## __27__

Baudrillard must have been describing TZM.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is the most entertaining and educational thread I've seen here in several months. Thanks!


It is for sure  This is fun!!

Jim Casey doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, but it is fun reading his bull$#@! repetition as evidenced by: Replies: 414  - Views: 6,086 lulz... lolz.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Have you ever raised a garden? Do you have any idea the work involved? Pricing is based on work input. I can offer you rotten tomatoes cheaper than fresh ripe tomatoes because most people like value. Pricing is determined by value. You are a brainwashed individual which is good for me because I can take advantage of you, but you are bad for people who believe your bull$#@!.


I've done gardening annually for years, tomatoes included.  The value is determined by accessibility.  A starving individual will gladly pay top dollar for rotten tomatoes. 



> This is the most entertaining and educational thread I've seen here in several months. Thanks!


Elegant communication is quite educational. 



> As a always you dont answer and just repeat your sentences without giving a $#@! if they make sense or not.


I prefer to avoid obfuscating the message.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Have a question for you JC.
> 
> Could you explain living arrangements in this idea?


They will evolve over time.  The circular cities modeled by Fresco in The Venus Project are a good example of a possibility. 





> Baudrillard must have been describing TZM.


TZM hasn't been around that long. 



> It is for sure  This is fun!!
> 
> Jim Casey doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, but it is fun reading his bull$#@! repetition as evidenced by: Replies: 414  Views: 6,086 lulz... lolz.


I'm sure many folks once found those espousing the idea that the earth is spherical to be repetitive and lacking in knowledge.

----------


## __27__



----------


## Travlyr

> I've done gardening annually for years, tomatoes included.  The value is determined by accessibility.  A starving individual will gladly pay top dollar for rotten tomatoes.


Lolz... starving individuals have tons of money... tons... "ahhh... hey.... I'm hungry... and I will pay you top dollar for your tomatoes... do you have any rotten ones?" lolz... Jim Casey... are you high?

----------


## hugolp

> Lolz... starving individuals have tons of money... tons... "ahhh... hey.... I'm hungry... and I will pay you top dollar for your tomatoes... do you have any rotten ones?" lolz... Jim Casey... are you high?


He is high on a dream. He will justify anything to defend the dream that gives him pleasure.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Lolz... starving individuals have tons of money... tons... "ahhh... hey.... I'm hungry... and I will pay you top dollar for your tomatoes... do you have any rotten ones?" lolz... Jim Casey... are you high?


Euphoric impairment is not required to understand accessibility has an effect on price regardless of an individual's money supply.  I wouldn't want to take advantage of your needs not being met for profit, but similar courses of action are hallmarks of a market based economy.

----------


## hugolp

> Euphoric impairment is not required to understand accessibility has an effect on price regardless of an individual's money supply.  I wouldn't want to take advantage of your needs not being met for profit, but similar courses of action are hallmarks of a market based economy.


How do you justify then that charity exists on a market economy even from those that defend it?

----------


## Jim Casey

> He is high on a dream. He will justify anything to defend the dream that gives him pleasure.


Visionary individuals make history.

----------


## Bman

> They will evolve over time.  The circular cities modeled by Fresco in The Venus Project are a good example of a possibility.


Let me rephrase.  How does occupation of property occur in your system?

----------


## Jim Casey

> How do you justify then that charity exists on a market economy even from those that defend it?


Charity is a basic human value.  Basic human values are distorted in favor of market values, but never eradicated.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Let me rephrase.  How does occupation of property occur in your system?


It would be done as efficiently as possible for occupation of the greatest number of people based on global population using the least amount of resources in the most sustainable way.  My system will be everyone's system, and everyone's real standard of living will increase based on real human needs, not on an economic indicator that is purported to reflect standard of living.

----------


## hugolp

> Charity is a basic human value.  Basic human values are distorted in favor of market values, but never eradicated.


So basically one can only be charitable or trade. Bull$#@!.

----------


## Bman

> It would be done as efficiently as possible for occupation of the greatest number of people based on global population using the least amount of resources in the most sustainable way.  My system will be everyone's system, and everyone's real standard of living will increase based on real human needs, not on an economic indicator that is purported to reflect standard of living.


Who decides the standard?

----------


## Jim Casey

> So basically one can only be charitable or trade. Bull$#@!.


Charitable behavior is not necessarily exclusive in trading, nor is it emphatically inclusive in trading.  Human values and money values are not the same.  



> Who decides the standard?


Many basic human needs are already identified through the scientific process, how well those needs are met can also be measured through a constantly improving system.

----------


## Bman

> Many basic human needs are already identified through the scientific process, how well those needs are met can also be measured through a constantly improving system.


What are you talking about?  You don't need science to identify needs.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It would be done as efficiently as possible for occupation of the greatest number of people based on global population using the least amount of resources in the most sustainable way.  My system will be everyone's system, and everyone's real standard of living will increase based on real human needs, not on an economic indicator that is purported to reflect standard of living.


Technocrat alert. Bee-do, bee-do, bee-do.  

I want no part of your system. It seems you have a problem. Will you kill me now? Steal all my property? Lock me in a cage? Or, let me live peacefully?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Technocrat alert. Bee-do, bee-do, bee-do.  
> 
> I want no part of your system. It seems you have a problem. Will you kill me now? Steal all my property? Lock me in a cage? Or, let me live peacefully?

----------


## Jim Casey

> What are you talking about?  You don't need science to identify needs.


Science more accurately identifies real human needs than economics can. 



> Technocrat alert. Bee-do, bee-do, bee-do.  
> 
> I want no part of your system. It seems you have a problem. Will you kill me now? Steal all my property? Lock me in a cage? Or, let me live peacefully?


Peaceful voluntary cooperation is the method of establishing communities within the resource based economy.  The more obvious the benefits of removing societies from a monetary market economy become, the more folks will volunteer.  As I said before, it's not just my system.  It's our system.  Just like it's our planet, not just mine or yours.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Science more accurately identifies real human needs than economics can. 
> 
> Peaceful voluntary cooperation is the method of establishing communities within the resource based economy.  The more obvious the benefits of removing societies from a monetary market economy become, the more folks will volunteer.  As I said before, it's not just my system.  It's our system.  Just like it's our planet, not just mine or yours.


In that case I choose not to live amongst your community. As long as you will let me live in a capitalistic society, all is well (though I somehow doubt the efficacy of the proponents of collectivism to leave me be -- history just isn't on your side). Also, every single society which tried to abolish, or not use money (money merely being the most marketable commodity) has been an utter failure, unless of course you value subsistence living then it was a great success. You will find the majority of us here Misesians, and we believe in the Socialist Calculation problem. I do wish you guys luck though. In a free-society we all can strive to fulfill our happiness as long as it doesn't impinge on others rights (negative rights).

You know who identifies human needs? The individual. No one else can tell me what my needs, desires, or wants are or should be. I find it laughable that science will tell me what I want. *What is economics besides human action?*

----------


## Jim Casey

> In that case I choose not to live amongst your community. As long as you will let me live in a capitalistic society, all is well (though I somehow doubt the efficacy of the proponents of collectivism to leave me be -- history just isn't on your side). Also, every single society which tried to abolish, or not use money (money merely being the most marketable commodity) has been an utter failure, unless of course you value subsistence living then it was a great success. You will find the majority of us here Misesians, and we believe in the Socialist Calculation problem. I do wish you guys luck though. In a free-society we all can strive to fulfill our happiness as long as it doesn't impinge on others rights (negative rights).
> 
> You know who identifies human needs? The individual. No one else can tell me what my needs, desires, or wants are or should be. I find it laughable that science will tell me what I want. *What is economics besides human action?*


There are many needs that are universal within species for every biological organism on this planet, no individual human is really exempt from being human.  Economics is based upon the movement of money, and human action can take place without money.  The concept of property did not originate with capitalism, it is a primitive mental perspective generated in scarcity.

----------


## Sentient Void

Wow, Jim. Well, a couple things.

3D printers, automation / robotics, computers, the internet as it is now, et cetera have all been made possible only because someone invested in these things. For *profit*. Without the profit motive in an environment of scarce, finite resources, not only would these things not exist, but future technological developments to reduce costs of living and increase standard of living wouldn't be possible.

Profit is a good thing. It's like a signal that tells you that you are using scarce resources effectively in order to produce something that is in great demand. The more profits you make (in a *free market system*, not a highly Statist/corporatist one like we have now), means you are producing significantly greater value to consumers than they would otherwise have without you're engaging in the activity to produce such profits. Increasing profits also send a signal that there is a greater demand to be met, and that even greater profits can be made in volume instead of per 'unit', by investing further in the activity to provide more of your product/service to even more people who demand it. Through the profit motive and the price signal (with anteceding innovation and entrepreneurship in a competitive market environment, and with price being a signal because it conveys information based on the relation of supply vs demand), supply and demand constantly move towards equlibrium, while more demands are being met, putting constant downward pressure on prices and simply rewarding those (with profits) who provide the product/service that is in demand to the greatest amount of individuals possible, at the best possible price (meaning, requiring the least amount of barter of one's own labor to attain the good/service) and quality (value).

This is why *all* of those before you that have tried to abolish prices, profit, and property have not only failed, and failed miserably, but resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions of people. Because without these things, it is literally impossible to even know what the relation of supply and demand is (the 'information problem'), coordinate supply and demand (the 'coordination problem'), and allocate resources effectively based on demands of consumers (such as food, clothing, and other basic necessities of life as well as luxurious that allow us to further enjoy it). This is why the SOviet Union made too many left shows and not not matching shoes. This is why millions of people go starving since the correct supply of food to meet the real demand of food can't be calculated. 

Not only without the profit motive and price signal would the even basic requirements to lay the foundation for TZM be *impossible* (read: the basic requirements wouldn't exist), but it would be impossible for even further innovation not in technology and determining the needs and wants by individuals to increase our standard of living.

Your plan is doomed to miserable, miserable failure. Technology (or lack thereof), or empirical science has nothing to do with it. Simply throwing around phrases like 'HURRR DURRRR SCIENCE AND SYSTEMS THEORY WILL FIX IT!' not only solves nothing, but ultimately *says nothing*. It's like saying 'mathematics will fix it', when mathematics fixes nothing, it just states truth. When you claim that 'science and systems theory' will fix problems, your claims are absolutely devoid of any actual solutions, based on the very nature of science and even systems theory.

You also don't even really understand what science is, the scientific method is, and how it works. These things don't 'prove' anything (as you believe and repeatedly state). They *lend evidence to*. That's it. The scientific method and science in general can *disprove things*, but that's it. It determines falsifiability. Your complete perception of science is simply absurd and, well, wrong.

Also, your claims that profit and value are 'objective' sounds like it has it's roots in the LTV (Labor Theory of Value). Is this accurate? Do you believe the value of something is determined solely by the amount of labor mixed in with the resources? If so, this has been empirically shown and logically proven absolutely *wrong* (over a century ago) and replaced by the more modern and clearly accurate STV (Subjective Theory of Value) and the theory of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Along with your not-so-new fantasies of top-down planning (read:central planning), regardless of who or what is at the top and whatever level of technology is being utilized in the environment of scarce resources.

You're also  completely missing the point in the context of the market when you say 'human values and monetary values are not the same'. Well, of course not - no self-respecting (legitimate) economist, and especially libertarian, believes this. You're not stating anything profound. However, what human beings *offer*, or produce (based on factors such as mental and/or physical labor, will, imagination, and skills), is and *should be* based in monetary value, simply because it is the best way available, in an environment of scarce resources, to get what one demands. Why must what human beings offer be valued based in monetary value? For the same exact reasons (as specified above) products must be based in monetary value (price signal, profit) - to convey information, and coordinate supply and demand.

Look, the fact is this. In an environment of finite, scarce resources, the (truly) free market is the most effective, most humane, most moral system available of distributing such resources, turn them into capital (devices in which we can do productive work), reduce opportunity costs (foregoing the consumption of other goods/services we demand in a hierarchy of priorities), and thus increase our standard of living (which, agreeably, has little to nothing to do with false nominal values attributed by the State, based on the subjective valuations of individuals). Until we reach a post-scarce 'world', this is the way it is and shall remain if we want to survive and prosper.

When we all get replicators (which will ultimately be created within a market environment, like all other profound technologies) like those from Star Trek, then we can realistically talk about such socioeconomic systems you and Father Peter Joseph advocate (and even *then*, there will still be market environments because certain things are and always will be inherently scarce - like time, human labor, and collectors items). Until then, as all those absolutist central planners who have come before you, you are looking to doom people to a life of misery, death and squalor.

As a tangent, you also mentioned something about how free markets could just recreate the State by the very nature of the wealthy wanting to protect and expand their interests. A valid concern, except we've never had a truly free market. Also, I believe Rothbard debunked this in his 'Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State' chapter in his book, 'The Ethics of Liberty'.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

Rothbard also already addressed a number of your concerns (decades ago) about land-ownership, property, etc that I see you've brought up a number of times. Honestly, how much have you read of Rothbard? If you want to try to think up any problems, I suggest you think up new ones - since everything you bring up has already been tackled by many before you, especially Rothbard. I will have to suggest 'For a New Liberty' and 'The Ethics of Liberty' if you at least want to get up to speed with these things, and try to come up with new criticisms, if you can.

But ultimately, I don't think this Zeitgeist movement is approaching 'critical mass' at all, anyways, despite how much you want to believe it to be so. The Zeitgeist movement simply doesn't have anywhere near enough of an existing following, and it is not growing very fast neither. Just because there is a very, very small group of very vocal people who spend all their time on the internet talking about it - doesn't mean it's reaching critical mass. Not only that - but it doesn't have a very high *net* growth of new people in general, it's mostly absorbing those who already ascribe to 'systems' of mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, etc. I've talked to a number of these people, this is what they ascribe to.

Now the growing libertarian and anarcho-capitalist movement... now *that* is something. 

I mean, hell... Llew Rockwell's blog (llewrockwell.com) is one of the most popular logs on the internet, and growing. RPF is one of the most active and popular political forums on the internet. Mises.org is one of the most popular and growing economics websites on the internet. I'm not talking out of my ass, this has effectively been shown to be the case on traffic-reporting sites.

I don't see TZM anywhere *near* any of these. This fad will fade and be forgotten.

----------


## Jim Casey

> 3D printers, automation / robotics, computers, the internet as it is now, et cetera have all been made possible only because someone invested in these things. For *profit*. Without the profit motive in an environment of scarce, finite resources, not only would these things not exist, but future technological developments to reduce costs of living and increase standard of living wouldn't be possible.


The greatest innovators in history haven't been motivated by profit.  Accessibility to and development of innovation has been held back by profit. 

BTW Bragging about the popularity of mises.org isn't saying much in comparison.

----------


## Sentient Void

> There are many needs that are universal within species for every biological organism on this planet, no individual human is really exempt from being human.  Economics is based upon the movement of money, and human action can take place without money.  The concept of property did not originate with capitalism, it is a primitive mental perspective generated in scarcity.


Wrong. Real economics is based on the subjective valuations of human needs and how those needs are met, and money is just one example of a possible medium of exchange to which humans can trade assets they don't want as much for assets they want more.

Human action can of course take place without money (this statement is nothing profound or insightful), *just not very well* (read: history of absolutist centrally planned economies that tried to abolish 'money' and property) in an environment of scarce resources.

The concept of property is not 'a primitive mental perspective generated in scarcity'. This is absurd. The concept of property is and has been established for millenia, even before human civilization (and is shown even in animal behavior), as an *effective* mental perspective generated in scarcity. Capitalism simply evolved out of property as a way to move beyond simple survival and subsistence living, in order to raise the subjective standards of living of individuals through wealth-building activities such as voluntary exchange, production, and investment (through saving, by deferred consumption).

You're living in a fantasy world, Jim. Your views are nothing new, and have resulted in the deaths of millions and left the survivors in a life of misery and squalor.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You're living in a fantasy world, Jim. Your views are nothing new, and have resulted in the deaths of millions and left the survivors in a life of misery and squalor.


The monetary market system is resulting in a death toll that increases every day for societies that can't afford the basics to survive.  As long and there is no profit in keeping those people alive, the death toll will continue to mount within this system.

----------


## Sentient Void

> The greatest innovators in history haven't been motivated by profit.  Accessibility to and development of innovation has been held back by profit.


I never said the greatest innovators in history have been motivated by profit. This I acknowledge as true. They want to contribute something either great to humanity, or make a significant accomplishment as a challenge/reward to themselves.

The point is, that the vast majority of their ideas and innovations were only made possible due to investment y parties interested in potential profits. Accessibility to and development of innovation has, yes - een held back - but *not* by profit. By specially interested parties associated with *the State*. This was the case with Nikola Tesla (unfortunately), was the case with all others with great, profound ideas that were squashed, and always will be the case within the context of a Statist society - not a free market one.




> BTW Bragging about the popularity of mises.org isn't saying much in comparison.


Just because you had a slight uptick *right* at the time the new Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie came out (which a lot of hype came from many people, including MANY who greatly disagree with you, including myself) and generated a lot of hype around it, to at once match a short period of a downturn in mises traffic says nothing about the long-term interest in the ZGM. Already, as your graph shows, the hype is wearing off, and itnerest is already dropping again - *not* moving up. Mises, however, has been relatively stable.

----------


## Sentient Void

> The monetary market system is resulting in a death toll that increases every day for societies that can't afford the basics to survive.  As long and there is no profit in keeping those people alive, the death toll will continue to mount within this system.


Your talking points are not only getting frustratingly repetitive, but are particularly vague and devoid of any real argument against what you call 'the monetary market system', apart from mere arbitrary claims of truth.

Ultimately, this is a strawman fallacy. This is not the fault of the free market, but the fault of a Statist system of expropriation from and retardation of productive capacity of the market.

You've also failed to address the vast majority of my initial post. Honestly, I'm not surprised - since you seem to be intellectually dishonest in your responses.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I never said the greatest innovators in history have been motivated by profit. This I acknowledge as true. They want to contribute something either great to humanity, or make a significant accomplishment as a challenge/reward to themselves.
> 
> The point is, that the vast majority of their ideas and innovations were only made possible due to investment y parties interested in potential profits. Accessibility to and development of innovation has, yes - een held back - but *not* by profit. By specially interested parties associated with *the State*. This was the case with Nikola Tesla (unfortunately), was the case with all others with great, profound ideas that were squashed, and always will be the case within the context of a Statist society - not a free market one.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you had a slight uptick *right* at the time the new Zeitgeist: Moving Forward movie came out (which a lot of hype came from many people, including MANY who greatly disagree with you, including myself) and generated a lot of hype around it, to at once match a short period of a downturn in mises traffic says nothing about the long-term interest in the ZGM. Already, as your graph shows, the hype is wearing off, and itnerest is already dropping again - *not* moving up. Mises, however, has been relatively stable.


Folks are becoming educated through TZM that any monetary market system, regardless of how more or less free it is, simply cannot continue sustaining humanity at its rate of growth.  We're also learning how innovations available through the market will never be the best available because it is simply unprofitable in the long term.  This growing awareness will dwarf whatever hype is being spread about the glory of the free market.  The system is broken and won't be fixed, it must be replaced.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Your talking points are not only getting frustratingly repetitive, but are particularly vague and devoid of any real argument against what you call 'the monetary market system', apart from mere arbitrary claims of truth.
> 
> Ultimately, this is a strawman fallacy. This is not the fault of the free market, but the fault of a Statist system of expropriation from and retardation of productive capacity of the market.
> 
> You've also failed to address the vast majority of my initial post. Honestly, I'm not surprised - since you seem to be intellectually dishonest in your responses.


Any manifestation of state that naturally occurs within any society living with the monetary market system is not exclusive from that system.

----------


## hugolp

> Folks are becoming educated through TZM that any monetary market system, regardless of how more or less free it is, simply cannot continue sustaining humanity at its rate of growth.  We're also learning how innovations available through the market will never be the best available because it is simply unprofitable in the long term.  This growing awareness will dwarf whatever hype is being spread about the glory of the free market.  The system is broken and won't be fixed, it must be replaced.


There is no growing awarness. Just us having fun with you here. Your chanting is very entertaining, I have to admit.

----------


## hugolp

> Your talking points are not only getting frustratingly repetitive, but are particularly vague and devoid of any real argument against what you call 'the monetary market system', apart from mere arbitrary claims of truth.
> 
> Ultimately, this is a strawman fallacy. This is not the fault of the free market, but the fault of a Statist system of expropriation from and retardation of productive capacity of the market.
> 
> You've also failed to address the vast majority of my initial post. Honestly, I'm not surprised - since you seem to be intellectually dishonest in your responses.


He is not dishonest in the sense that he does it on purpose. He just has a dream and thiking in the dream gives him intellectual pleasure, so his brain rejects any logical though that gets him away from the pleasure. Its a very basic brain process. He is emotionally attached to the dream, and it does not matter how much logic you throw at him. Its quite amazing to follow.

----------


## Jim Casey

> There is no growing awarness. Just us having fun with you here. Your chanting is very entertaining, I have to admit.


The more folks read my posts, the more their awareness grows.  Entertaining or not, education is taking place.

----------


## Jim Casey

> He is not dishonest in the sense that he does it on purpose. He just has a dream and thiking in the dream gives him intellectual pleasure, so his brain rejects any logical though that gets him away from the pleasure. Its a very basic brain process. He is emotionally attached to the dream, and it does not matter how much logic you throw at him. Its quite amazing to follow.


The logical conclusions that I have attached emotional energy to are indeed pleasant, and I also feel a strong sense of accomplishment from educating others with my knowledge through discussion.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Folks are becoming educated through TZM that any monetary market system, regardless of how more or less free it is, simply cannot continue sustaining humanity at its rate of growth.  We're also learning how innovations available through the market will never be the best available because it is simply unprofitable in the long term.  This growing awareness will dwarf whatever hype is being spread about the glory of the free market.  The system is broken and won't be fixed, it must be replaced.


You act like we have a free-market. We don't.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> The logical conclusions that I have attached emotional energy to are indeed pleasant, and I also feel a strong sense of accomplishment from educating others with my knowledge through discussion.


So, with no money how exactly are you going to calculate economic decisions? How are you going to allocate resources? Is there any intellectualism behind the movement? Have you answered Mises-Hayek Socialist Calculation critique?

Frankly, you have brought no discernable knowledge as I can see, but I would gladly welcome any that is forthcoming. (Honestly, your movement is nothing new, it is basically anarcho-communism)

PS: You are aware that money has been outlawed before right? Case in point: Pol Pot. Cambodia had massive starvation and rampant impoverishment thanks to that little experiment.

----------


## Jim Casey

> So, with no money how exactly are you going to calculate economic decisions? How are you going to allocate resources? Is there any intellectualism behind the movement? Have you answered Mises-Hayek Socialist Calculation critique?
> 
> Frankly, you have brought no discernable knowledge as I can see, but I would gladly welcome any that is forthcoming. (Honestly, your movement is nothing new, it is basically anarcho-communism)
> 
> PS: You are aware that money has been outlawed before right? Case in point: Pol Pot. Cambodia had massive starvation and rampant impoverishment thanks to that little experiment.


The point isn't to outlaw money.  The point is that money has no real bearing on resource production and distribution capacity.

----------


## teacherone

> Elegant communication is quite educational. 
> 
> I prefer to avoid obfuscating the message.


epic irony.

dude...i would love to buy you a beer sometime.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Participants within the monetary market paradigm are in fact supporters of the system, even if they object to the system.


From a few pages after that goldmine:




> *Since I still participate within the monetary market system*, I still defend my property from the violent aberrant behavior that is still currently rewarded within the monetary market system.  Once critical mass is reached and access abundance manifested within a resource based economy, I could care less about the car I own today, just as I could care less about the 5 cars I previously owned.


halol

----------


## hugolp

> So, with no money how exactly are you going to calculate economic decisions? How are you going to allocate resources? Is there any intellectualism behind the movement? Have you answered Mises-Hayek Socialist Calculation critique?
> 
> Frankly, you have brought no discernable knowledge as I can see, but I would gladly welcome any that is forthcoming. (Honestly, your movement is nothing new, it is basically anarcho-communism)
> 
> PS: You are aware that money has been outlawed before right? Case in point: Pol Pot. Cambodia had massive starvation and rampant impoverishment thanks to that little experiment.


The Computer will provide. Amen.

Its communism... with robots.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The Computer will provide. Amen.
> 
> Its communism... with robots.


Communism, like fascism and capitalism, are primitive experiments compared to systems that can be managed using the technology available today.

----------


## ClayTrainor

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio

----------


## __27__



----------


## Wren

> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio


Awesome, an hour left till the show starts

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Awesome, an hour left till the show starts


Anyone else making popcorn for it? lol

----------


## hugolp

> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio


I though the communist guy was going to go to the Stephan program. I guess they wanted to play home.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I though the communist guy was going to go to the Stephan program. I guess they wanted to play home.


Yea, I dunno man.  I don't even think Peter Joseph is going to be in the conversation, which should be very telling to fans of Zeitgeist, if true.

----------


## __27__

How do i listen?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> How do i listen?


I think there will either be a button or a link available at this link, in 47 minutes.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Someone record it so I can listen to it when I get off work tomorrow. Stefan's strong point is ethics, but he is capable on the economic front (though he makes many mistakes and elementary errors), so this should be fun. It would be fun to have someone like Peter Klein go on there and have a nice debate. Would be fun to listen to.

----------


## Sentient Void

Yeah, I'm at work and won't be able to check it out until tonight - so I hope someone records it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yeah, I'm at work and won't be able to check it out until tonight - so I hope someone records it.


If someone can let me know of some good software to record live audio streams, i'll do it.  Although, I'm sure someone out there is already on it, and I Think blogtalkradio automatically records it as well.

----------


## Jim Casey

> If someone can let me know of some good software to record live audio streams, i'll do it.  Although, I'm sure someone out there is already on it, and I Think blogtalkradio automatically records it as well.


The recording will be available.  Their recent featured episode is a debunking of a mises.org article recorded last September.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...rian-neo-troll

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The recording will be available.  Their recent featured episode is a debunking of a mises.org article recorded last September.
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...rian-neo-troll


Did they invite someone from the Austrian school onto their program during that episode, or is it just a some VPers agreeing with eachother and calling it a "Troll" as the link title suggests? 

"brandy-hume-returns-to-confront-austrian-neo-troll"

Does he actually confront Robert Murphy?  Cause that would be worth listening to, no doubt.

----------


## Wesker1982

This should be interesting 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview

----------


## V for Voluntary

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview



http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview

----------


## Wesker1982

I don't think 1 hour will be enough time lol

----------


## Vessol

> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview


I hope a full video or audio file is uploaded of the debate!

It's not a debate between Peter Joesph and Stefan is it?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I don't think 1 hour will be enough time lol


No, definitely not.  So far there is some great common ground being reached.  The host of the program sounds like an intelligent, free thinking individual, so far.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I hope a full video or audio file is uploaded of the debate!
> 
> It's not a debate between Peter Joesph and Stefan is it?


No, peter is not there.

Also, this host seems to be saying things that seem to contradict some of Peters statements.

It was nice to hear him say that "the Zeitgeist movement needs to talk more about the Non-aggression principle" or something along those lines.

----------


## Jeremy

The host seems to be contradicting some of the things Peter said.

----------


## dannno

> This should be interesting 
> 
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio...adio-interview


LOL, Stef just summarized the venus project, and the guy he was interviewing said it was a good summary, and Stef said, "Ya, I thought so too, I thought it was pretty convincing speech, in fact, I'm on board, let's go baby!"

TVP supporter talked about the Zeitgeist system supports NAP, and Stefan backed him up with some things Jaque Fresco has said in a video he saw (not that there may not be some potentially contradictory statements)

TVP supporter seems to be more into the anarchist philosophy than Peter Joseph, and admitted that Joseph's videos attacking Stef were slightly misguided because he kept insinuating that Stef supports the current system, when he merely supports the idea of free exchange and disagrees strongly with the other 99% of the system.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The host seems to be contradicting some of the things Peter said.


Peter so far doesn't even mention the non-aggression principle.  It was great to hear the host of this show speaking very favorably towards it.

I think this is demonstrating the Zeitgeist audience is a very key audience for educating and introducing to Austrian economic principles, so far.

----------


## jtstellar

why is "peter joseph" using personal and micro detail examples to analyze a macro comprehensive worldly system he's trying to implement that cannot be achieved without everybody's cooperation, coerced or not?

what is this?  inductive reasoning?  from small picture to assume the larger?

did he mention him being a former trader
as a trader myself, i will assume he must have been not very good at it

edit:  i guess it's not mr joseph.. whoever this person is

----------


## dannno

TVP guy just said that he doesn't want to ban trade, currency, he wants to make it obsolete. 

That's something I've said about currency with my roommate - If he wants to make it obsolete by getting together with a bunch of people and producing an abundance of goods and services so people don't need to buy things, then that's great. If people don't desire to trade or purchase, then I have no problem with currency going away in that way. 

I really hope the Zeitgeist movement move towards NAP as a whole, that has been a personal goal of mine, as they tend to want to integrate it strongly into their movement but they don't emphasize it enough, imo.

----------


## jtstellar

god who is this guy debating stef he sounds like a high school grad (no offense to some of the high school students here)

crap crap crap bull$#@! any of that crap

can this guy expand his vocabulary a little

----------


## Wesker1982

> I think this is demonstrating the Zeitgeist audience is a very key audience for educating and introducing to Austrian economic principles, so far.


Agreed

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Agreed


One thing that's interesting about them, is how they criticize all marketing and advertising as if it's evil.  One of the most impressive things about Zeitgeist is how effective they are at marketing and advertising their content.

----------


## jtstellar

> One thing that's interesting about them, is how they criticize all marketing and advertising as if it's evil.  One of the most impressive things about Zeitgeist is how effective they are at marketing and advertising their content.


the "pointing out the irony" strategy rarely works.. usually it just gets ignored

----------


## ClayTrainor

> the "pointing out the irony" strategy rarely works.. usually it just gets ignored


haha, well irony is always amusing to me.

----------


## Wesker1982

So its pretty much the same old central planning arguments, but with super computers...

----------


## ClayTrainor

Only 10 mins left, and we're finally getting to some meaty disagreement.

----------


## Wesker1982

9 minutes left and they are just getting started, 1 hour definitely not long enough lol

edit:




> Only 10 mins left, and we're finally getting to some meaty disagreement.


lol

----------


## Jeremy

Yeah lol.  Good now.  The beginning was nothing much.

----------


## Wesker1982

Radio host just got owned

----------


## Wren

This was an extremely awkward interview.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yeah lol.  Good now.  The beginning was nothing much.


The host went on like 10 minute rants, and stefan just shut up.  Now it's getting interesting.  I hope it goes longer than an hour.  Stefan has got 'em cornered, and they just invited some engineer from the live chat who is going to "school" Stefan.

----------


## Jeremy

I doubt it's ending.  The guy didn't know what to say.  They are bringing another guy on.

----------


## jtstellar

> Only 10 mins left, and we're finally getting to some meaty disagreement.


well once stef started asking on some specifics on how the programming is to be done i just know there's not much to talk about
that's like asking mao to give the details of his plans right on the spot and explain why it would work.  guy couldn't even do it in his backroom with all his advisers.

----------


## dannno

Radio host is calling in an expert with TVP on how their computer resource allocation system will work.

----------


## Wesker1982

I hope they go longer than 1 hour

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I hope they go longer than 1 hour


It says there's another hour left.

----------


## dannno

New guy Doug says currently private companies decide to allocate resources based on surveys and studying the demand of said items, which is incorrect. They actually look at current PRICES, find out how much it COSTS to produce.. if there is a big enough profit margin then they will produce it because they will be able to compete with other producers.

Stef is now explaining this well, pwning in fact.

----------


## ClayTrainor

"the resource based economy would be a free-market economy, because it would be free, *nothing costs anything*"  Doug (not verbatim) 

.lmao

----------


## Wesker1982

16,000 universal space credits, i loled

----------


## ClayTrainor

ugh... the "science" cop-out...

----------


## Wesker1982

What about the starving people?!?!

----------


## Wesker1982

> ugh... the "science" cop-out...


+100000000000

----------


## ClayTrainor

> What about the starving people?!?!


lol, that was an emotional response from cognitive dissonance.  Stefan has got them both in a corner.  This is turning out about exactly how I expected.

----------


## Wren

> What about the starving people?!?!


The guy left. How convenient

----------


## Wesker1982

loooooooooooooooool

----------


## Wesker1982

the walmart card NOOOOOO WE ARE DOOMED

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The guy left. How convenient


Lol, he finally realized what he got himself into, and gtfo before he made a bigger ass of himself.

----------


## ClayTrainor

"yea we're about a central system having a monopoly"- host

It's been said... not that it wasn't obvious.

----------


## jtstellar

so can "left-libertarian" or "libertarian socialists" or whatever nonsense people just pack up and leave now?

this movement has been suffering from confusing messages from within since the start

i mean it's been this long if you still haven't been educated.. perhaps there is really something about iq that bottlenecks the progression of libertarianism

----------


## Wren

LOL! This is getting really hard to listen to, they've brought up 2 people besides the host to help with debating stef and they are still unable to answer his core criticisms.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> so can "left-libertarian" or "libertarian socialists" or whatever nonsense people just pack up and leave now?


Actually, they appear to be Anarcho-Communists, not really Left-Libertarian.

----------


## jtstellar

wish i could register and talk in the radio blog's chatroom apparently full of economic illiterates.. their server is overloaded or something.. cant seem to register




> Actually, they appear to be Anarcho-Communists, not really Left-Libertarian.


i said that because those terms pop up every now and then.. last time i heard it was during a discussion concerning something glenn greenwald brought up and some people there described themselves as "left-libertarians".. and just now on youtube with the back and forth response videos on zeitgeist between stef and mr joseph, some youtubers are calling themselves "socialist libertarians" (whatevertf that means)

----------


## dannno

Stef just told people to stop calling TVP a cult

----------


## jtstellar

bunch of bummed out young people without money proposing a system that doesn't use money.. what a surprise

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Stef just told people to stop calling TVP a cult


Well, not exactly, he didn't tell anyone to do anything.  He talked about what he thinks it means when someone throws the cult label around.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

There are left-libertarians who are quite good. People like Roderick Long for instance. However, these people are not in any way shape or form, left-libertarian. 

Now back to trying to get some sleep

----------


## dannno

> Well, not exactly, he didn't tell anyone to do anything.  He talked about what he thinks it means when someone throws the cult label around.


I believe he did make the request, I know he doesn't like to "tell" people to do things.

----------


## hugolp

Did the interview already finished?

Btw, left-libertarian that are market anarchists are fine and completely compatible under austrian economics, the NAP and other libertarian core values.

----------


## V for Voluntary

EPISODE NOTES    
Host Name:     V RADIO
Show Name:    Stefan Molyneux of FreeDomain radio interview!
Date / Length: 2/7/2011 2:00 PM - 2 hrs

Description: By popular demand Stefan Molyneux of FreeDoman radio is coming to V-RADIO to discuss his concerns with The Venus Project, and The Zeitgeist Movement. This will be a civil dialog, not an argument. 

stefan-molyneux-of-freedomain-radio-interview(V RADIO - 2 hours)(show_1524786)(February 07, 2011).mp3 (27.42 MB)

http://www.multiupload.com/BE0AYNETDM

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/sho...ow_1524786.mp3



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM

----------


## ClayTrainor

That was a good conversation, and I think Stef really exposed some serious flaws in their thinking, in a very respectful manner.   I was really, really pleased to see the host take  a firm stand on the Non-Aggression principle, and tell his listeners that it should be talked about more. 

One thing tho... I guess Peter Joseph was too busy programming the algorithms for his supercomputer to show up and talk, or something?  The host seemed to say some things that contradict many things Peter has said in the past, and it would've been nice to see Peter confronted on the same issues to see how he would respond.

----------


## ClayTrainor

I just found this post on The official Zeitgeist forum, in their thread for this interview, and it put a huge smile on my face.




> http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...&limitstart=10
> 
> Thanks for the efforts neil, Frank, and Doug, but as usual, the critics willing to hear our arguments are asking for evidence, and as usual we can't provide the evidence. It ends up being a circular debate of ideologies, both sides feeling as though they've solved the problem with entirely different routes to achieving that solution.
> 
> TZM: Hey, the current system sucks, here's why. Here's our system, its the 'ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION'
> 
> Opponents: Hey, I know the current system sucks, but your system sounds like robot communism
> 
> TZM: Nah Uh! We are not communism, see we got science, and technology! ITS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION!
> ...


We should be making a stronger effort to reach out to this demographic, imho.  They've identified the same problem we have, but they are confused on basic economics, largely due to false prophets making absurdly vast promises.

----------


## purplechoe

> EPISODE NOTES    
> Host Name:     V RADIO
> Show Name:    Stefan Molyneux of FreeDomain radio interview!
> Date / Length: 2/7/2011 2:00 PM - 2 hrs
> 
> Description: By popular demand Stefan Molyneux of FreeDoman radio is coming to V-RADIO to discuss his concerns with The Venus Project, and The Zeitgeist Movement. This will be a civil dialog, not an argument. 
> 
> stefan-molyneux-of-freedomain-radio-interview(V RADIO - 2 hours)(show_1524786)(February 07, 2011).mp3 (27.42 MB)
> 
> ...


thanks, listening now...

----------


## dannno

> I just found this post on The official Zeitgeist forum, in their thread for this interview, and it put a huge smile on my face.
> 
> 
> 
> We should be making a stronger effort to reach out to this demographic, imho.  They've identified the same problem we have, but they are confused on basic economics, largely due to false prophets making absurdly vast promises.


That's a great post, did you see the response to that one on the next page??

AS IF The Venus Project people can, with intellectual honesty, call someone "fringe _anything_ !!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> That's a great post, did you see the response to that one on the next page??
> 
> AS IF The Venus Project people can, with intellectual honesty, call someone "fringe _anything_ !!


haha, seriously.

For the lol's, look at one of the follow up comments in that thread.




> When it comes to wanting some kind of proof that an RBE would work..you only have to take a look at this movement..ton's of young people, enthusiastically discussing and coming up with ideas for how this problem or that problem could be solved in an RBE .......show me where there is any enthusiasm for solving anything in the monetary system, all anyone feels is defeat and depressed, knowing that things can only keep on getting worse.


lol, yea, that's some hardcore scientific proof ... I'm now convinced 

The real critical thinkers of their movement (there are a few) will immediately start gravitating towards Stef's youtube channel now, I bet.  I expect to see a rapid increase of subscribers, followed by a consistent, faster rate of subscriptions on his channel from this point forward. 

I hope to see more of these conversations in the future. It will take more than 1 debate like this to reach out to the average zeitgeister audience, but it can only be a good thing for free-market advocates to keep confronting them with the tough questions, so long as it's handled in the respectful manner that Stef just demonstrated.

----------


## __27__

I thoroughly enjoyed that.  I believe that we can only benefit from an open dialogue with rational intelligent people inside TZM like the host of this show.

I have to admit I was literally LOLing at the end as he apologized to his listeners that the prices for the books in his shop were so high due to being available only as 'print on demand'.  From the people who tell us everything will be free on demand their prices are high for books, yet virtually every Austrian/Ancap/Voluntaryist book can be had online for free including Stef's which he plugged several times for free.  That kind of irony is lost on many people.

And now, I've been trying to get on TZM forums for about an hour to leave a simple thank you for the kind discussion on their program.  The board itself is INCREDIBLY slow, every forum has about 150 different moderators, and the registration process is terrible.  Now that I'm registered it is requiring me to take a TEST in order to post with horribly slanted TZM questions and I apparently failed the first attempt with 14/20 right so I can't yet have the privilege of posting on their forum....

----------


## __27__

Oh I give up, I guess I'm not turtly enough for the turtle club.

----------


## dannno

> I have to admit I was literally LOLing at the end as he apologized to his listeners that the prices for the books in his shop were so high due to being available only as 'print on demand'.  From the people who tell us everything will be free on demand their prices are high for books, yet virtually every Austrian/Ancap/Voluntaryist book can be had online for free including Stef's which he plugged several times for free.  That kind of irony is lost on many people.


LOL!!



> And now, I've been trying to get on TZM forums for about an hour to leave a simple thank you for the kind discussion on their program.  The board itself is INCREDIBLY slow, every forum has about 150 different moderators, and the registration process is terrible.  Now that I'm registered it is requiring me to take a TEST in order to post with horribly slanted TZM questions and I apparently failed the first attempt with 14/20 right so I can't yet have the privilege of posting on their forum....


Hmmm, I wonder if you have to pass a TZM test to collaborate with TVP for our new society

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

___27___ that is hilarious. It is indeed true. Look at LRC, OLL, LvMI, Freeman Online, C4SS, etc. I too would like to see more open debates and dialogue. I could just imagine the logical destruction that Peter K. would unleash. Come ye' come ye' all. Krugman, TVP, Bernanke, Solow, Schwartz, debate us!

----------


## purplechoe

It started off fairly well for the host when at first he was just spewing a bunch of crap he has read somewhere. The whole train came off the rails for him towards the end when he had to go off the script and actually defend his stupidity. It's fairly obvious none of those morons understand economics. I doubt that most of them will be persuaded by the "truth" and science. These useful idiots will always believe in distribution of wealth and that private property is evil. Stefan was way too nice to them especially towards the end. Personally I would definitely call them a cult, their beliefs are very much like some kind of religion... You can tell especially by the comments of that one guy who came on the air the to explain the "programming of the computer" when he started talking about poor people in third world countries, emotions overwhelm their reason, very cultist if you ask me...

Ignorance is strength...

----------


## silverhandorder

I wouldn't be so harsh. First of all a lot of them are probably pretty pissed if they see us saying we demolished their representatives. And the thing is that there was a lot of common ground. I rather have TVP to compete with then statists. If we can get them just to agree on the NAP they will become a powerful ally. It seems the host $#@!ing loves NAP, I wonder what percentage of them will agree. If it is significant enough to guarantee NAP from them as an organization this can only end up as a plus for everyone.

Lastly their socialist utopia can work if they live in a larger society that is capitalist. SO if they are peaceful they may end up with exactly what they want. Soviets copied our price system to arrive at some what alright allocation of resources. They can do the same, if anything they might need us.

----------


## Vessol

Regardless of their inability to understand economics, Silver is right.

I would feel much more comfortable if Peter Joesph(the figurehead of their movement) would come forward and state that he follows the Non-Aggression Pact. Then these guys will be 100x better than any heavy Statist.

----------


## Sentient Void

> I wouldn't be so harsh. First of all a lot of them are probably pretty pissed if they see us saying we demolished their representatives. And the thing is that there was a lot of common ground. I rather have TVP to compete with then statists. If we can get them just to agree on the NAP they will become a powerful ally. It seems the host $#@!ing loves NAP, I wonder what percentage of them will agree. If it is significant enough to guarantee NAP from them as an organization this can only end up as a plus for everyone.
> 
> Lastly their socialist utopia can work if they live in a larger society that is capitalist. SO if they are peaceful they may end up with exactly what they want. Soviets copied our price system to arrive at some what alright allocation of resources. They can do the same, if anything they might need us.


Perhaps. But I think it's very important to recognize and make the distinction between those who have dug in their heels and are no longer logically, but instead emotionally attached to the Zeitgeist movement (as we continue to logically, morally, economically demolish their irrational fantasies, while still being rational and non-fallacious ourselves), and those who are the audience (these are the ones we should be aiming for) - those who are interested in hearing everything out. The ones watching and listening and 'lurking' and reading debates such as those on these forums, on the Zeitgeist forums, through audio debates and interviews such as this. 

I am reminded of this very important clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY

----------


## Vessol

Still listening on and off to the debate. And wow, Stefan is on his game! They really cannot challenge or put forth any real debate to Mises's calculation problem.

----------


## ClayTrainor

A couple days ago stefans youtube comments wall was littered with "Peter pwned you, you're an idiot" type of comments...

And now it's mostly filled with comments that are full of great questions and compliments towards his appearance on v-radio today.  Watching Stefan handle this with such courtesy and respect should be an important lesson for us all, imo.

This whole conversation has been very beneficial to me.  I've learned so much about how to interact with people I disagree with, and can't wait to further engage them in conversation in the future.  I'm convinced after this conversation, that this demographic is one we should be going after and making an honest attempt to reach out to.  There are lots of open-minded folks just looking for answers, within their impressively large numbers.

/ramble.

----------


## hugolp

I have not listen to the program but for the comments here I would bet they wont do this again. But I completely agree with the ones saying that discussion is more productive if kept civil. I myself have been working on that for some time. Its just sometimes its hard.




> I wouldn't be so harsh. First of all a lot of them are probably pretty pissed if they see us saying we demolished their representatives. And the thing is that there was a lot of common ground. I rather have TVP to compete with then statists. If we can get them just to agree on the NAP they will become a powerful ally. It seems the host $#@!ing loves NAP, I wonder what percentage of them will agree. If it is significant enough to guarantee NAP from them as an organization this can only end up as a plus for everyone.
> 
> Lastly their socialist utopia can work if they live in a larger society that is capitalist. SO if they are peaceful they may end up with exactly what they want. Soviets copied our price system to arrive at some what alright allocation of resources. They can do the same, if anything they might need us.


Hopefully I am wrong, but marxists have a long history of saying that they will be peaceful and respectful towards others only to change their attitude when they gain any power. Marxism is internationalists and expansive. Its in Karl Marx writtings. Lenin was the one saying that liying is revolutionary. That is why its not a problem for them to lie, its for the revolution.

----------


## dannno

> I have not listen to the program but for the comments here I would bet they wont do this again. But I completely agree with the ones saying that discussion is more productive if kept civil. I myself have been working on that for some time. Its just sometimes its hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully I am wrong, but marxists have a long history of saying that they will be peaceful and respectful towards others only to change their attitude when they gain any power. Marxism is internationalists and expansive. Its in Karl Marx writtings. Lenin was the one saying that liying is revolutionary. That is why its not a problem for them to lie, its for the revolution.


You should give it a listen, it's 2 hours but I'd say worth it.. the guy interviewing him has some background with Ron Paul and free market economics, he just never REALLY understood it and hopped the Venus Project bandwagon too early.. but he is better than Peter Joseph and admits Peter Joseph made some incorrect statements in his responses to Stef. They both get along really well and find a lot of commonality. Stef gets him to focus on NAP, and the interviewer ends up saying that NAP is good and is an integral part of their movement (we hope it stays that way).

----------


## Vessol

Yeah. That really was an amazing conversation/peaceful debate.

I picked up a lot of debate points as well that Stefan brought up as well as learned more. Really really good conversation.

----------


## ClayTrainor

A new member just posted on the FDR board, and was disappointed in Stefan's performance.  Just curious what you guys think of this...




> *Zeitgeist debate - Stefan ignoring the elephants in the room?*
> 
> I assume the Zeitgeist Movement (ZM) still believes that everything will be without prices.
> 
> Ok, demand will skyrocket.  I want to live on the ocean with 50 acres, travel on a personal jet around the world and eat the finest sushi and organic goodies, just to start.  Maybe I missed it, but couldn't the simple fact the demand goes up as price goes down, especially when free, have forced the ZM debater to clarify the mechanism that assigns who will get what?  Certainly there will be more demand for many things than supply, when prices and profit are eliminated.
> 
> Certainly there will be jobs that people have a higher demand for, let's say foot massagers and house cleaners than the number of people choosing those vocations.  How will this demand be met without a profit incentive?
> 
> I am dissapointed Stefan allowed these obivous things to slide by without adequate answer.  I feel the debate would have been very short had this been elaborated upon with more real life examples, instead of repeately asking for the calcuation.  I don't believe the other debater fully understood what Stef meant by a calculation, and that you can't fulfill everyone's wants, there are shortages of some high demand things, and without a price, or valuation system, it can't be determined who gets to vacation in the most desireable places.  Can someone please tell me the ZM solution to this?  A lottery?  Does everyone get an equal chance in the lottery regardless of what they have prodcued of value, be it goods or ideas?
> ...

----------


## hugolp

> You should give it a listen, it's 2 hours but I'd say worth it.. the guy interviewing him has some background with Ron Paul and free market economics, he just never REALLY understood it and hopped the Venus Project bandwagon too early.. but he is better than Peter Joseph and admits Peter Joseph made some incorrect statements in his responses to Stef. They both get along really well and find a lot of commonality. Stef gets him to focus on NAP, and the interviewer ends up saying that NAP is good and is an integral part of their movement (we hope it stays that way).


That is exatcly the impression I get from the comments here. I am not listening it because lately I got a bit tired of listening to central planners and right now Im focusing my energies in some things. But I am sure it was a civil and interesting debate. Still, watch out. Central planners have a history of saying whatever they need to get to power.

----------


## silverhandorder

I think the fdr guy is smoking something. Stef handled the calculation debate perfectly. Besides his line of attack would have been completely unproductive since the zm guy could have said "in our society no one would want to massage your feet or clean your room because they will have enough to no nav to do what you should do your self". While the zm guy would have still been wrong it would just become a long debate about nothing and whether foot massages will exist in rbe.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Just reading the Zeitgeist board reveals the same old Marxist tripe -- _polylogism_. I don't feel the need to lay a scholarly critique tonight, but suffice to say, I would love to see Peter K. or Salerno debate Peter. Then again, I doubt that will provide much of any substance precisely because of the polylogism tripe. 

Always reminds me of Adam Savage from Mythbusters: "I reject your reality and substitute my own." In this case they reject reality altogether and instead substitute their own fantasies.

----------


## dannno

> I think the fdr guy is smoking something. Stef handled the calculation debate perfectly. Besides his line of attack would have been completely unproductive since the zm guy could have said "in our society no one would want to massage your feet or clean your room because they will have enough to no nav to do what you should do your self". While the zm guy would have still been wrong it would just become a long debate about nothing and whether foot massages will exist in rbe.



Well, for one, he did have a cold, but also he is a radio host on a station that is operated by Peter Joseph and TZM.. he can't just abandon the philosophy, admit he's wrong and become a free market person and expect to stay on the station.. that's a big decision for him, I'm sure.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Well, for one, he did have a cold, but also he is a radio host on a station that is operated by Peter Joseph and TZM.. he can't just abandon the philosophy, admit he's wrong and become a free market person and expect to stay on the station.. that's a big decision for him, I'm sure.


Very good points.  He has invested his reputation in these ideas, and admitting you've been wrong or mislead about something you've been so dedicated to and invested in, is a very tough thing to do for anyone.

----------


## dannno

> A new member just posted on the FDR board, and was disappointed in Stefan's performance.  Just curious what you guys think of this...


That guy should watch the films if he's going to make big posts like that and ask what their solution is, when it is laid out in the film, not the answers to his questions of course, but it would help if he was more familiar with their solution. It would also give him more credibility with the ZM supporters, because he's heard their case and wants more info. That is where Stef was pretty successful. He is able to articulate the ZM goals very well, as he did in the beginning of the interview, and has attempted to understand exactly where they are going.

----------


## V for Voluntary

> And now, I've been trying to get on TZM forums for about an hour to leave a simple thank you for the kind discussion on their program.  The board itself is INCREDIBLY slow, every forum has about 150 different moderators, and the registration process is terrible.  Now that I'm registered it is requiring me to take a TEST in order to post with horribly slanted TZM questions and I apparently failed the first attempt with 14/20 right so I can't yet have the privilege of posting on their forum....


Thanks. I was wondering how true that was.

"@voiceofreason467 - PS. I've looked at your forum, and I would love to comment, but your cult leader insist I read 2 pdfs, watch two video lectures, read a web faq and then answer a politically loaded quiz giving the exact answers they want to hear in order to gain the rights to exercise free speech on his forum. That is a wonderful example of how your technocratic society will end up."
StormCloudsGathering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHIgA6A0sv8

----------


## Jim Casey

For folks who say TZM doesn't understand economics, do understand that just because an economic model is rejected as an invalid model for a particular economic system, doesn't mean that the model is not understood.  Economic limitations of a monetary market system model don't hinder the development of a resource based economy system model anymore than limitations of a flat earth cartographic model could not hinder the development of a spherical earth cartographic model.

----------


## hugolp

> For folks who say TZM doesn't understand economics, do understand that just because an economic model is rejected as an invalid model for a particular economic system, doesn't mean that the model is not understood.  Economic limitations of a monetary market system model don't hinder the development of a resource based economy system model anymore than limitations of a flat earth cartographic model could not hinder the development of a spherical earth cartographic model.


The Computer will provide. Amen.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The Computer will provide. Amen.


Dude, we'll be gellin' like Magellan in the RBE.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

No offense, but if closely analyzed the EU (or energy units) proposed by the TZM is essentially exactly the same as the LTV. They both believe in objective measurements of value, and both place that value on labor or in this case 'energy'. I don't think I need to go into the details of how insidiously wrong the LTV and objective value is.

----------


## hugolp

> No offense, but if closely analyzed the EU (or energy units) proposed by the TZM is essentially exactly the same as the LTV. They both believe in objective measurements of value, and both place that value on labor or in this case 'energy'. I don't think I need to go into the details of how insidiously wrong the LTV and objective value is.


Value can be objective as long as I am the ruler deciding this "objective" value. Or at least I am the programmer in charge of The Computer. Economic laws dont apply if I rule!

----------


## Jim Casey

> Value can be objective as long as I am the ruler deciding this "objective" value. Or at least I am the programmer in charge of The Computer. Economic laws dont apply if I rule!


You rule, bro.  Your input counts very much.  Whatever you decide you want from the system is part of the surveyed data.  You'll also have plenty of free time to innovate things that haven't been invented yet, but you still want anyway.

----------


## Jim Casey

> No offense, but if closely analyzed the EU (or energy units) proposed by the TZM is essentially exactly the same as the LTV. They both believe in objective measurements of value, and both place that value on labor or in this case 'energy'. I don't think I need to go into the details of how insidiously wrong the LTV and objective value is.


Energy and resource efficiency is one measure of value to enter into the system as data.  Utility and access demand is the other.  Supply meets demand with no money involved.

----------


## jtstellar

> You should give it a listen, it's 2 hours but I'd say worth it.. the guy interviewing him has some background with Ron Paul and free market economics, he just never REALLY understood it and hopped the Venus Project bandwagon too early


that's what i don't get about people.  is this a symptom of extremely short attention span of some sort?  people would listen to couple Ron Paul interviews, get interested, then stop paying attention immediately and go off doing their own crap.. following some cult movement.

these zeitgeist people in particular are just so in over their heads and lacking understanding of anything, that they don't even know where you're coming from when you talk about non-violence.. it's not like they had a master plan in mind on how to implement their garbage or anything.  they don't even know why you're asking a question like that or what significance it has of it.

a year ago when i saw the second zeitgeist film i thought to myself:  "man, what garbage."  i never would have thought that a year later it would grow into a movement. it would even have enough voice that i would make posts refuting their elementary school logic..  losing hope in humanity.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Energy and resource efficiency is one measure of value to enter into the system as data.  Utility and access demand is the other.  Supply meets demand with no money involved.


How exactly will you know what is in demand without a price mechanism? How exactly will you know what not to produce? How will you know how much to produce? Whether or not to increase or decrease production? Without prices, profit and loss, there can be no economic calculation.

All I see from TZM is a bunch of egalitarianism, LTV/Objective value, anti-economic science, and the same old polylogism of Marxism. I really do not see how you are any different than anarcho-communists, except you will go one step further and abolish trade and money, and this will of course all happen by some super-computer which is being programmed by error-filled humans. I cannot fathom how people believe a computer will tell me what I want, or what I like, or what I demand. Only I, as an individual knows that, and these things change dynamically.

----------


## Jim Casey

> How exactly will you know what is in demand without a price mechanism? How exactly will you know what not to produce? How will you know how much to produce? Whether or not to increase or decrease production? Without prices, profit and loss, there can be no economic calculation.


Utility and access demand will be surveyed.  Production is quantified to use energy and resources to meet demand as efficiently as possible creating the most durable products with the best future upgrade potential according to existing knowledge.  With the distortion of profitability, it's impossible to produce in this way.



> All I see from TZM is a bunch of egalitarianism, LTV/Objective value, anti-economic science, and the same old polylogism of Marxism. I really do not see how you are any different than anarcho-communists, except you will go one step further and abolish trade and money, and this will of course all happen by some super-computer which is being programmed by error-filled humans. I cannot fathom how people believe a computer will tell me what I want, or what I like, or what I demand. Only I, as an individual knows that, and these things change dynamically.


You tell the computer what you want and what you demand.  The computer is a tool used to meet that demand.  Computers are already used as tools to meet demand in the money market system, the major difference is that demand as well as efficiency is always distorted by profitability.

----------


## Jim Casey

> that's what i don't get about people.  is this a symptom of extremely short attention span of some sort?  people would listen to couple Ron Paul interviews, get interested, then stop paying attention immediately and go off doing their own crap.. following some cult movement.
> 
> these zeitgeist people in particular are just so in over their heads and lacking understanding of anything, that they don't even know where you're coming from when you talk about non-violence.. it's not like they had a master plan in mind on how to implement their garbage or anything.  they don't even know why you're asking a question like that or what significance it has of it.
> 
> a year ago when i saw the second zeitgeist film i thought to myself:  "man, what garbage."  i never would have thought that a year later it would grow into a movement. it would even have enough voice that i would make posts refuting their elementary school logic..  losing hope in humanity.


I met Ron Paul in person on 4 separate occasions, and this was after watching the 1st Zeitgeist.  After watching the 2nd, I figured I wasn't yet sold on the concept of TVP, so I figured I would stick with libertarian principles.  

Then once Obama was inaugurated and enacted some executive orders that benefited the organized labor movement, a huge wage of anti-union sentiment swept the entire conservative movement and Ron Paul himself didn't hesitate to join in.  I realized then and there that those who claim to support a free market really only care about the freedom of certain individuals.  Laborers are a lower race of people according to economists.

Now that the 3rd Zeitgeist is out, I don't have any concerns at all about how much libertarians hate union members.  It really doesn't matter at all, because the ultimate goal of eliminating the monetary market system altogether is much better than trying to prove to any purported liberty lovers that laborers can actually have a say in how much they get paid.

----------


## hugolp

> I met Ron Paul in person on 4 separate occasions, and this was after watching the 1st Zeitgeist.  After watching the 2nd, I figured I wasn't yet sold on the concept of TVP, so I figured I would stick with libertarian principles.  
> 
> Then once Obama was inaugurated and enacted some executive orders that benefited the organized labor movement, a huge wage of anti-union sentiment swept the entire conservative movement and Ron Paul himself didn't hesitate to join in.  I realized then and there that those who claim to support a free market really only care about the freedom of certain individuals.  Laborers are a lower race of people according to economists.
> 
> Now that the 3rd Zeitgeist is out, I don't have any concerns at all about how much libertarians hate union members.  It really doesn't matter at all, because the ultimate goal of eliminating the monetary market system altogether is much better than trying to prove to any purported liberty lovers that laborers can actually have a say in how much they get paid.


You might want to try this: http://c4ss.org/

It might help you.

PS: I also come from the left and had trouble with some of the attitudes of some people. But that is no reason to start believing in senseless stuff. Not all libertarians are anti-unions. In fact, the problem any real libertarian should have should be with government unions. Workers association (without the intervention of the state) are 100% libertarian. Its curios because if you read Kevin Carson (he is a mutualist, which is free market anti-capitalism or free market socialism) he describes historically how the government created the government unions as a way to dismantle the free market workers associations so they could manage the workers and reduce their bargaining power for better wages and conditions.

----------


## hugolp

> Utility and access demand will be surveyed.  Production is quantified to use energy and resources to meet demand as efficiently as possible creating the most durable products with the best future upgrade potential according to existing knowledge.  With the distortion of profitability, it's impossible to produce in this way.


So how is this different from the present system in the way of incentivating people to be less greedy? Ok, people wont use money to express their greediness because there wont be money (suposedly because money always appears...) but they will show their greediness through the surveys and will organize to demand more stuff and change the computer program.

If you really are troubled by the fact that people greed expresses through money, I dont see how changing money for surveys is going to change the attitude of the people. We are not that "stupid" (at least in that sense). People will still want more.




> You tell the computer what you want and what you demand.  The computer is a tool used to meet that demand.  Computers are already used as tools to meet demand in the money market system, the major difference is that demand as well as efficiency is always distorted by profitability.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You might want to try this: http://c4ss.org/
> 
> It might help you.
> 
> PS: I also come from the left and had trouble with some of the attitudes of some people. But that is no reason to start believing in senseless stuff. Not all libertarians are anti-unions. In fact, the problem any real libertarian should have should be with government unions. Workers association (without the intervention of the state) are 100% libertarian. Its curios because if you read Kevin Carson (he is a mutualist, which is free market anti-capitalism or free market socialism) he describes historically how the government created the government unions as a way to dismantle the free market workers associations so they could manage the workers and reduce their bargaining power for better wages and conditions.


Although I've been a member of the Teamsters for 12 years, I've never considered myself to be on the left or coming from the left.  Considering how much thinly masked raw hatred I encountered within the liberty movement directed towards labor unions during a time when very small advances were being made by organized labor because of lifting of government restrictions, I doubt Carson or anyone else is going to convince me that economics is a study that considers laborers as anything more than a lower race.



> So how is this different from the present system in the way of incentivating people to be less greedy? Ok, people wont use money to express their greediness because there wont be money (suposedly because money always appears...) but they will show their greediness through the surveys and will organize to demand more stuff and change the computer program.
> 
> If you really are troubled by the fact that people greed expresses through money, I dont see how changing money for surveys is going to change the attitude of the people. We are not that "stupid" (at least in that sense). People will still want more.


I've never been troubled by people expressing greed through money.  Greed naturally manifests in a monetary market system.  Demand is distorted through profitability.  Without profitability, there is no need to encourage greed.  Folks won't be fed advertising messages constantly telling them they need a new and better product when the best products money can't buy are already accessible whenever they need them.

----------


## jtstellar

> I met Ron Paul in person on 4 separate occasions, and this was after watching the 1st Zeitgeist.  After watching the 2nd, I figured I wasn't yet sold on the concept of TVP, so I figured I would stick with libertarian principles.  
> 
> Then once Obama was inaugurated and enacted some executive orders that benefited the organized labor movement, a huge wage of anti-union sentiment swept the entire conservative movement and Ron Paul himself didn't hesitate to join in.  I realized then and there that those who claim to support a free market really only care about the freedom of certain individuals.  Laborers are a lower race of people according to economists.
> 
> Now that the 3rd Zeitgeist is out, I don't have any concerns at all about how much libertarians hate union members.  It really doesn't matter at all, because the ultimate goal of eliminating the monetary market system altogether is much better than trying to prove to any purported liberty lovers that laborers can actually have a say in how much they get paid.


ron paul isn't against "unions".. he is (just as i am) against unions funding their own wages through government guarantees and laws or in the form of tax dollar funded pensions in the case of government employees.  i guess once you live under such mindset long enough you start losing support for libertarian principles and the ideas of independence.  precisely the reason why i refused to apply for unemployment wellfare for the short duration after i left school and was out of work.  i am glad i didn't.  it helped me maintain my principles and conviction.

----------


## hugolp

> Although I've been a member of the Teamsters for 12 years, I've never considered myself to be on the left or coming from the left.  Considering how much thinly masked raw hatred I encountered within the liberty movement directed towards labor unions during a time when very small advances were being made by organized labor because of lifting of government restrictions, I doubt Carson or anyone else is going to convince me that economics is a study that considers laborers as anything more than a lower race.


Carson has been worried about the workers way before you were.




> I've never been troubled by people expressing greed through money.  Greed naturally manifests in a monetary market system.  Demand is distorted through profitability.  Without profitability, there is no need to encourage greed.  Folks won't be fed advertising messages constantly telling them they need a new and better product when the best products money can't buy are already accessible whenever they need them.


But people will demand more and better things, and that will create factions that support different computer programs that benefit them more than the others, etc... In a distribution system you dont overcome human nature, whether you call it greed, profit or whatever.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Energy and resource efficiency is one measure of value to enter into the system as data.  Utility and access demand is the other.  Supply meets demand with no money involved.


Such statements are based on LTV bull$#@! (whether you realize it or not) and based on pseudo-economics. LTV was debunked long ago and is patently false. 

Value is absolutely subjective and changes based on diminishing marginal utility and innumerable other factors. Money is irrelevant - even as an accurate price it does not and could not measure subjective value, but instead offers a potential trade (which for example, one individual may value the good/service higher than the price, one *much higher*, whereas another individual may value much lower than the price, another *much lower*) based on the factors of supply and demand. There is also *no* empirical measurement of value. The scientific method is also irrelevant, since by it's very nature it just states facts and does not / cannot provide judgements of value. 

You will never be able to successfully abolish 'money' (I say 'money' because any item can serve as 'money', or a medium of exchange) in a society with free individuals. Even in an extreme example of if you somehow manage to make all resources non-scarce (which the ZGM doesn't claim, I understand), there will still be services and certain luxuries that are unavoidably scarce and there will *always* be a market for, and thus require some kind of medium of exchange, or 'money'. How do you and other zeitgeisters respond to this?

----------


## Jim Casey

> ron paul isn't against "unions".. he is (just as i am) against unions funding their own wages through government guarantees and laws or in the form of tax dollar funded pensions in the form of government employees.  i guess once you live under such mindset long enough you start losing support for libertarian principles and the ideas of independence.  precisely the reason why i refused to apply for unemployment wellfare for the short duration after i left school and was out of work.  i am glad i didn't.  it helped me maintain my principles and conviction.


I never heard about Adam Smith's notion of a "race of laborers" before watching the latest Zeitgeist film.  Now I understand what I really needed to know regarding what notions any economists, regardless of economic school of thought, have about individuals who sell their labor.  Notions those economists have about the state aren't really as important.



> Carson has been worried about the workers way before you were.
> 
> 
> 
> But people will demand more and better things, and that will create factions that support different computer programs that benefit them more than the others, etc... In a distribution system you dont overcome human nature, whether you call it greed, profit or whatever.


I'm no longer convinced that any economists have plans that favor all individuals on a level playing field.  Human nature is mostly determined by environment, I won't accept that cop out argument any longer. 



> Such statements are based on LTV bull$#@! (whether you realize it or not) and based on pseudo-economics. LTV was debunked long ago and is patently false. 
> 
> Value is absolutely subjective and changes based on diminishing marginal utility and innumerable other factors. Money is irrelevant. There is *no* empirical measurement of value. The scientific method is also irrelevant. 
> 
> You will never be able to successfully abolish 'money' (I say 'money' because any item can serve as 'money', or a medium of exchange) in a society with free individuals. Even in an extreme example of if you somehow manage to make all resources non-scarce (which the ZGM doesn't claim, I understand), there will still be services and certain luxuries that are unavoidably scarce and there will *always* be a market for, and thus require some kind of medium of exchange, or 'money'. How do you and other zeitgeisters respond to this?


There is absolutely nothing that the monetary market produces that cannot be produced better without the profitability factor.  The attaining of unavoidably scare luxuries is nothing more than a status symbol of overinflated meaning within an economically stratified society.

----------


## jtstellar

@jim casey

also try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BduQxAugn4c

and also just to point this out.. many of us didn't have a horse in the race to begin with in the field of ideas unlike you (i suppose you're a laborer that belong to some union?  really a no-brainer guess really).  some even support libertarianism despite the conflict against their own self interest (to live on a dole or not when you are out of work)

we began at neutral starting points and arrived at the same libertarian conclusions after exploring a lot of libertarian views on topics.. since it's as you say that you became somewhat disinterested in the libertarian take immediately just after hearing what they had to say about unions, i think it's safe to say you don't understand libertarianism much at all.  you simply stopped exploring it.  then it pretty much defeats the purpose of having a debate because if you don't do your own homework, libertarianism isn't something that can be conversed through online keyboarding.  saying you kinda explored ron paul is ways off from saying that you understand both the zeitgeist and libertarianism philosophy equally well to make an informed/intellectual decision.  and if not, i'm not sure why it should be taken seriously.

----------


## silverhandorder

My parents work for the government and they support RP 100%. It is all about being honest with your self.

----------


## eric_cartman

> Utility and access demand will be surveyed.  Production is quantified to use energy and resources to meet demand as efficiently as possible creating the most durable products with the best future upgrade potential according to existing knowledge.  With the distortion of profitability, it's impossible to produce in this way.
> 
> You tell the computer what you want and what you demand.  The computer is a tool used to meet that demand.  Computers are already used as tools to meet demand in the money market system, the major difference is that demand as well as efficiency is always distorted by profitability.


alright... let's look at a specific example and please explain to me how how this "super computer" is better able to produce the product than the free market: 

*example:
video game system and video games*

throughout human history, people have always played games for entertainment... whether it be games with a ball or a deck of cards or whatever... but these days, people like to play video games.  So in the Venus Project world, when this survey comes around, a bunch of people write that they want a variety of video games to play.  Some want first person shooters like counter strike, some want real time strategy games like StarCraft.... others want more interactive games like on the Wii.  Most people have some idea of the type of game they want to play, but they don't really know exactly what they want because it hasn't been invented yet.  For example, someone might fill in that they want a "puzzle" style video game... but they didn't know specifically what might be fun and i'm sure that almost everyone has a slightly different idea about what their ideal video game would be. 

People might know that they like puzzle games, but since these games have not yet been created, people don't really know what type of puzzle game would be fun.  It turns out that lots of people enjoy Tetris as a "puzzle" game... but if you could imagine a world where Tetris had not been invented yet, and a survey gets sent out asking you to describe your ideal "puzzle" video game... there might only be one guy who fills out his survey describing a game where you rotate different shapes to make them fit together to destroy lines.  There are hundreds of different "puzzle" video games created over the years, but most of them weren't very much fun and were not successful, and only a few, like Tetris, became popular and widespread after a lot of trial and error and lots of people being creative.

So clearly you can't just go to your super computer and say "Super Computer, I demand that you make me a video game system with lots of games that lots of people are going to enjoy, and by the way, make sure it is manufactured making an efficient use of resources and energy, and make it upgradeable and durable".

So hopefully you'll realize that you can't command a super computer to do this for you, no matter how awesome you make this super computer.  If you want to make a video game system and video games from scratch, it's going to take a lot of work from a lot of people.  obviously, in a market based capitalistic system like we have today, we've managed to create really awesome video games, and we have a huge variety so people can pick the games and system they like the most. 

*So please explain how video games and video game systems are produced in the Zeitgeist Utopian world? 

1) the computer determines that the people want video games. 
2) now what?* 

Maybe you get lots of volunteers who have ideas for a console system.  So maybe you get 1000 different people who volunteered to make a design outline for a console system.  So now you've got 1000 different ideas... maybe 700 of them don't really make a lot of sense because those people are stupid and don't know how to make a console system.  Then you get 297 ideas that could potentially work... and then you get 3 ideas for systems that people would actually enjoy... they called them the Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox.  So how do we determine which console system to start making out of the hundreds or thousands of design outlines that are submitted. 

But let's just assume that there was a way of actually picking out the best ideas... maybe you have other volunteers looking at the different ideas and then voting on which idea they think is the best... and let's say that they arrived at the conclusion that 3 consoles should be produced called the nintendo, playstation and xbox.  So the computer then grants a the necessary resources towards the production of these consoles.  But now we actually have to design a prototype and make new specialized machines to make these things.  How many people did it take working together before Microsoft was able to start cranking out Xboxs from their factory?  It probably took thousands of people working for hundreds of hours designing this thing.  But of course, these people didn't just all automatically cooperate, the company hired specific people for specific jobs and you had competent managers deciding things and people doing grunt work and all that stuff.  And there might be some enjoyable aspects of designing and creating a console system, but there are some jobs that are probably not enjoying at all, and they require very specialized skills and many hours of tedious and unenjoyable work.

But let's just pretend that you somehow manged to actually create an xbox factory and Zeitgeist society can now manufacture xboxs..... now how do you go about creating the games?  If you start taking suggestions for video games, you'll end up with literally millions of ideas for video games that people will voluntarily submit... but there might not be that many people who have the technical skills to actually make the game.  So now the question is... how do you make a video game? how many video games should be made? these days, it takes hundreds or thousands of people, working 40 hour work weeks all year to make a descent game.... some games literally take years to make.  Do you really think there will be all these people who will just volunteer to write thousands of lines of computer code?  people will volunteer for the fun parts of the game making... but you're not going to get many people who want to do all the grunt work that is required.  It also takes a lot of resources to produce a video game.... so are you just going to give resources to anyone who wants to attempt to make a game?  what if people spend all these resources and then give up half way through because it was too much work and they couldn't be bothered? or maybe some of the people who got the resources didn't really know what they were doing and they failed to make something that worked.  and maybe you'll have a few people who could have potentially made a great game, but no one wanted to work for them and obey their orders to write thousands of lines of computer code which is required to make the games.

in a market-based capitalistic system, all these issues get taken care of though voluntary interactions.... which is why we currently have really awesome and complex video games today.  We know there's a demand for video games, so we've got all sorts of people out there competing to build the best system and best games... and companies organize their workers in such a way that they ultimately produce the product.  Not everyone likes there job... but you get lots of people who study how to program computer code in school so that they can get a job programming video games... and they work for a company with a manager who hires them and tells them what to do and they work hard and earn a good living and everyone gets to enjoy the video games they create. 

So the Zeitgeist system can appear to work if you're trying to do a really simple task, like building a chair or a soccer ball.... but when it comes to making these really complex products... i don't see how the Zeitgeist system can produce them with high quality and good efficiency.  I actually think that even a simple task like building a soccer ball would be difficult.

So a second, and easier example would be the manufacturing of soccer balls.  So let's pretend that soccer balls don't exist yet, but other balls do (like baseballs).  So let's pretend like we already have factories and the knowhow to produce baseballs... but now people want to start making soccer balls.  How does the computer know the best kind of soccer ball to make?  Who figures out how to reconfigure the machines to make these soccer balls?  How do we know which volunteer will be best able to accomplish these goals? 

I really feel like the whole idea of the Zeitgeist City relies on a magic computer and magic machines that just create whatever it is that we want... and somehow, all these volunteers are going to be organized by the magic computer and that you'll still find volenteers for these things. 

*In the Zeitgeist world ... i don't think there would be any Proctologists for example*, because who in their right mind would voluntarily go to school for something like 8 years, and then examine people's ass holes all day?  Even if there were a few people who decided to do this out of the goodness of their own hearts... *i would imagine you would have massive shortages in occupations like butt doctors*.  In today's society, we have lots of butt doctors who study their ass's off at medical school and then work really hard treating patients all the time... because they get rewarded for their hard work and personal sacrifice with higher incomes than most people because they are producing such a valuable service.

Most of the products and services that we consume today involve some sort of undesirable labour that very few people would freely volunteer for if they got no additional benefits or rewards for their sacrifice.

----------


## Sentient Void

> I never heard about Adam Smith's notion of a "race of laborers" before watching the latest Zeitgeist film.  Now I understand what I really needed to know regarding what notions any economists, regardless of economic school of thought, have about individuals who sell their labor.  Notions those economists have about the state aren't really as important.


This is a complete strawman, and any association between race and profession or skill is utterly absurd. Adam Smith doesn't speak for all economists, and the vast majority of economists, especially austrian economists say absolutely nothing about any relation between 'race' and profession or skill. Bringing this up is completely irrelevant in the context of legitimate economics.




> There is absolutely nothing that the monetary market produces that cannot be produced better without the profitability factor.


There is not only no example in history of this, but you provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your arbitrary claims. No historical evidence, no logical /apriori evidence, not even any 'scientific' / empirical evidence. This is just an absurd arbitrary claim backed by nothing, and is completely fallacious and rooted in dogma. 

You folks do a lot of debunking of religion and faith, yet you engage in it yourselves on a significant level. Dogma is the belief in something without the need for any logical or empirical evidence, and this is exactly what you're doing.




> The attaining of unavoidably scare luxuries is nothing more than a status symbol of overinflated meaning within an economically stratified society.


How so? If I have a baseball card signed by one of my baseball idols, and I value it very highly - and it is a truly unique and unavoidably scarce resource - what does this have anything to do with it being a status symbol? What about an original painting I want to own - to know that the very beautiful painting I own had the original effort and planning and touch applied to it by the original artist? What does this at all have to do with status? What if I really enjoy a specific massage, but not a lot of people like giving it (because it's too difficult or requires a certain level of skill not easily found) - or what if I prefer a specific sex act that many aren't willing to do? i could come up with an infinite amount of examples. These are all luxuries, and are inherently, unavoidably scarce - and have nothing to do with status.

because *you*, or 'the supercomputer' or the 'interdisciplinary teams programming the supercomputer' believe they aren't needed, are you going to *prevent* me from attaining these things? How would you prevent me?

----------


## __27__

> I met Ron Paul in person on 4 separate occasions, and this was after watching the 1st Zeitgeist.  After watching the 2nd, I figured I wasn't yet sold on the concept of TVP, so I figured I would stick with libertarian principles.  
> 
> Then once Obama was inaugurated and enacted some executive orders that benefited the organized labor movement, a huge wage of anti-union sentiment swept the entire conservative movement and Ron Paul himself didn't hesitate to join in.  I realized then and there that those who claim to support a free market really only care about the freedom of certain individuals.  Laborers are a lower race of people according to economists.
> 
> Now that the 3rd Zeitgeist is out, I don't have any concerns at all about how much libertarians hate union members.  It really doesn't matter at all, because the ultimate goal of eliminating the monetary market system altogether is much better than trying to prove to any purported liberty lovers that laborers can actually have a say in how much they get paid.


Interesting, someone tried to use a monopoly on violence to force others to comply to their demands and another person who believes in individual freedom and the NAP disagreed with it so you abandon the philosophy of individual freedom and NAP?  Apparently you never understood it to begin with.  Once a thug willing to use violence to meet his person ends, always a thug willing to use violence to meet his personal ends.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Greed naturally manifests in a monetary market system.  Demand is distorted through profitability.  Without profitability, there is no need to encourage greed.  Folks won't be fed advertising messages constantly telling them they need a new and better product when the best products money can't buy are already accessible whenever they need them.


This is historically false. When the soviet union tried to abolish price and property, there was still greed, particularly at the politburo, which they, along others, became privileged classes. They lived luxurious lifestyles, and due to their special connections and political power got away with $#@! no one else would. They still had greed for luxuries and material posessions, and due to their power and control could attain things no one else could or were allowed to. They also had a greed for power where if anyone questioned them, they were destroyed.

----------


## ClayTrainor

In case anyone hasn't listened to it yet, here's the video from stef's channel.

----------


## Jim Casey

> @jim casey
> 
> also try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BduQxAugn4c
> 
> and also just to point this out.. many of us didn't have a horse in the race to begin with in the field of ideas unlike you (i suppose you're a laborer that belong to some union?  really a no-brainer guess really).  some even support libertarianism despite the conflict against their own self interest (to live on a dole or not when you are out of work)
> 
> we began at neutral starting points and arrived at the same libertarian conclusions after exploring a lot of libertarian views on topics.. since it's as you say that you became somewhat disinterested in the libertarian take immediately just after hearing what they had to say about unions, i think it's safe to say you don't understand libertarianism much at all.  you simply stopped exploring it.  then it pretty much defeats the purpose of having a debate because if you don't do your own homework, libertarianism isn't something that can be conversed through online keyboarding.  saying you kinda explored ron paul is ways off from saying that you understand both the zeitgeist and libertarianism philosophy equally well to make an informed/intellectual decision.  and if not, i'm not sure why it should be taken seriously.


I explored the ideas of and indeed followed the lead of Ron Paul quite zealously for approximately 7 months.  How well a philosophy is understood is not the same at witnessing how folks motivated by said philosophy behave.  I detect communication patterns from both Ron Paul and Peter Joseph that convey weak personal psychological self-management that I'm confident will result in behavior from them that I will find highly distasteful and disappointing.  Although neither Paul nor Joseph are folks that I consider to be models of sound psychological health, both communicators have extremely powerful messages philosophically.  Over the course of the past 4 years that I've been exploring the messages of each of them, I weigh their message by how well I can envision the resulting health of the society and environment.



> My parents work for the government and they support RP 100%. It is all about being honest with your self.


My initial interest in actively supporting Ron Paul was his endorsement of precious metals currency.  I learned far more about the philosophy of liberty as a result than I ever would've been interested to discover academically.



> alright... let's look at a specific example and please explain to me how how this "super computer" is better able to produce the product than the free market: 
> 
> *example:
> video game system and video games*
> 
> throughout human history, people have always played games for entertainment... whether it be games with a ball or a deck of cards or whatever... but these days, people like to play video games.  So in the Venus Project world, when this survey comes around, a bunch of people write that they want a variety of video games to play.  Some want first person shooters like counter strike, some want real time strategy games like StarCraft.... others want more interactive games like on the Wii.  Most people have some idea of the type of game they want to play, but they don't really know exactly what they want because it hasn't been invented yet.  For example, someone might fill in that they want a "puzzle" style video game... but they didn't know specifically what might be fun and i'm sure that almost everyone has a slightly different idea about what their ideal video game would be. 
> 
> People might know that they like puzzle games, but since these games have not yet been created, people don't really know what type of puzzle game would be fun.  It turns out that lots of people enjoy Tetris as a "puzzle" game... but if you could imagine a world where Tetris had not been invented yet, and a survey gets sent out asking you to describe your ideal "puzzle" video game... there might only be one guy who fills out his survey describing a game where you rotate different shapes to make them fit together to destroy lines.  There are hundreds of different "puzzle" video games created over the years, but most of them weren't very much fun and were not successful, and only a few, like Tetris, became popular and widespread after a lot of trial and error and lots of people being creative.
> 
> ...


Innovation is stifled by the monetary market system.  Nearly all sectors of undesirable labor can be replaced by automation.  The profit factor more often motivates rote labor than technological innovation.  Without the profit factor, innovation thrives.  This is especially true within video games.  I can actually even cite an example that I am aware of.  The computer game Civilization V.  The developers, motivated by profit factor, allowed extensive game modulation in Civilization IV.  One particularly innovative individual, motivated solely by innovative ambition, was constantly emailing the developers demanding for improved modulation that required new update patches.  All the employees designing Civ V, motivated by profit, did not come up with as much innovative new material as this one individual, so they actually decided to hire this person to do what he did solely for passion. 



> This is a complete strawman, and any association between race and profession or skill is utterly absurd. Adam Smith doesn't speak for all economists, and the vast majority of economists, especially austrian economists say absolutely nothing about any relation between 'race' and profession or skill. Bringing this up is completely irrelevant in the context of legitimate economics.
> 
> 
> 
> There is not only no example in history of this, but you provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your arbitrary claims. No historical evidence, no logical /apriori evidence, not even any 'scientific' / empirical evidence. This is just an absurd arbitrary claim backed by nothing, and is completely fallacious and rooted in dogma. 
> 
> You folks do a lot of debunking of religion and faith, yet you engage in it yourselves on a significant level. Dogma is the belief in something without the need for any logical or empirical evidence, and this is exactly what you're doing.
> 
> 
> ...


Hoarding bizarre and useless trinkets is indicative of mental illness.  These types of illnesses aren't common where people have basic social needs met.  And nobody tells you what you want, you tell the computer what you want.  How much time each day do you require access to these useless trinkets?  Certainly access to fetish fulfillment can exist without profit motive. 



> Interesting, someone tried to use a monopoly on violence to force others to comply to their demands and another person who believes in individual freedom and the NAP disagreed with it so you abandon the philosophy of individual freedom and NAP?  Apparently you never understood it to begin with.  Once a thug willing to use violence to meet his person ends, always a thug willing to use violence to meet his personal ends.


Violence is not human nature.  This is a cop out argument to ignore underlying environmental factors resulting within an unsound society that lead to aberrant behavior. 



> This is historically false. When the soviet union tried to abolish price and property, there was still greed, particularly at the politburo, which they, along others, became privileged classes. They lived luxurious lifestyles, and due to their special connections and political power got away with $#@! no one else would. They still had greed for luxuries and material posessions, and due to their power and control could attain things no one else could or were allowed to. They also had a greed for power where if anyone questioned them, they were destroyed.


Aberrant behavior is common where basic social needs aren't met.  The point in the RBE is not to abolish money and property, but to render those concepts obsolete.

----------


## Sentient Void

You're not addressing any of the actual arguments. We're going completely in circles.

Nebulous, ad-hockian intellectual devoidism rooted in techno-crypto-communism. I'm done with this.

-rep, -rep, -rep.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You're not addressing any of the actual arguments. We're going completely in circles.
> 
> Nebulous, ad-hockian intellectual devoidism rooted in techno-crypto-communism. I'm done with this.
> 
> -rep, -rep, -rep.


The circular argument of equating primitive experiments to elegant systems is really over?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Nebulous, ad-hockian intellectual devoidism rooted in techno-crypto-communism.


I can't believe I actually understood that, when i read it. lol.

----------


## dannno

Great, so Jim, you're saying butt doctors will choose their career based on their passions??

I think I'd rather have a butt doctor who is in it for the money..

----------


## outspoken

Money is not the root of all evil but rather, love (i.e. worship) of money that is the root of evil.  Money serves a necessary function the likes of which have no equal in terms of storing production of labor.  The Zeigeists completely disregard this function of money and there is no substitution.  There are many people who cling to the believe of redistribution in it's many forms thus perpetuating the belief that government can play God.  They fail to recognize their own unconscious egoic wants and desires as well as acceptance of responsibility for their happiness and life choices.  If their is any chance of humanity overcoming the ego found within the unconscious of our individual human natures, it will come about through individual enlightenment (Know Thy Self.) spreading not top down collectivism which is what this is at its core.

----------


## Sentient Void

Hell, I would even say that while it's certainly no virtue - the 'love (or worship) of money' is still not inherently evil. While it may lead to evil in the same sense that addiction might lead to evil or buying a gun may lead to evil or really how almost any random act can lead to evil, these acts are not in and of themselves evil, rather certain other acts in their use may be evil based violating other peoples' person or justly acquired property. 

While it may be selfish an perhaps even stupid - what is so evil about hoarding money for the sake of money? What evil act is actually bring done? Who is being hurt if all that is being done is loving money and hoarding it away?

The root of all evil is ultimately the initiation of aggression against person and/or justly acquired property - aka violation of the NAP.

----------


## dannno

> Hell, I would even say that while it's certainly no virtue - the 'love (or worship) of money' is still not inherently evil. While it may lead to evil in the same sense that addiction might lead to evil or buying a gun may lead to evil or really how almost any random act can lead to evil, these acts are not in and of themselves evil, rather certain other acts in their use may be evil based violating other peoples' person or justly acquired property. 
> 
> While it may be selfish an perhaps even stupid - what is so evil about hoarding money for the sake of money? What evil act is actually bring done? Who is being hurt if all that is being done is loving money and hoarding it away?
> 
> The root of all evil is ultimately the initiation of aggression against person and/or justly acquired property - aka violation of the NAP.


You can hoard money without 'loving' it. You can hoard money because you love your family and want the best for them, or because you want security or to buy stuff that will make you truly happy (and not just stuff that is a symbol of having a lot of money).

----------


## Sentient Void

> You can hoard money without 'loving' it. You can hoard money because you love your family and want the best for them, or because you want security or to buy stuff that will make you truly happy (and not just stuff that is a symbol of having a lot of money).


Absolutely, but my point is that even if you just loved money for the sake of loving money and wanted as much of it as possible - while I think it's kind of stupid and selfish, and far from a virtue - I don't see what's inherently evil about that.

----------


## sevin

> In case anyone hasn't listened to it yet, here's the video from stef's channel.


This is one of the most fascinating conversations I've ever heard.

----------


## IceForester

> "Great, so Jim, you're saying butt doctors will choose their career based on their passions??"


Im having problems with the lack of details about volunteer shortages myself


I assume, that all the information to become a proctologist is available for free, is in development, and that any doctor can obtain this information. 
I also consider there is a need for a participation coordination system that highlights the need for specilaists and that proctologists might be high on the list. 

So that medical students have both the information that its labeled a priority and that there is insufficient volunteers, retired proctologist may also see this and volunteer part time for patient consultations and/or to work with creative teams knowledge systems specialists.  In addition, this situation will also show up for knowlege/systems engineers and a number of inventive people looking to automate the least interesting jobs, and this automation will be prioritized. 

There may be a case for including a system of incentive (other than money as we know it) for volunteers that help with jobs for which there's a shortage of volunteers. One possibility is a reservation points that allow people to make reservations further ahead of time.

----------


## dannno

> There may be a case for including a system of incentive (other than money as we know it) for volunteers that help with jobs for which there's a shortage of volunteers. One possibility is a reservation points that allow people to make reservations further ahead of time.


Sounds like currency.

Reservation points means there is a shortage of good or service X

If somebody with reservation points wants good Y, which also has shortage problems, then they will be able to effectively trade and this destroys the concept of the system.

----------


## silverhandorder

Reservation points is like money though. You will have people with reservation points who will stratify the system. Hardly sounds like rbe anymore.

----------


## IceForester

Non transferable reservation points. You reserve a trip to the carabean or a fancy restaurant or Yatch, but you cant give the points away, if you cancel its avaiable for someone else?

----------


## outspoken

It is one thing to respect what money is and to value collecting it in an effort to provide the greatest level of security for one's self or family as possible.  When you not just value but worship money, you are willing to attain it via all costs including costs which involve human suffering.  Those who started the FED illustrate this point quite well, as well as corrupt governments such as those found in the developing countries.  When you loose your sense of humanity in the pursuit of emotional attachment to money it is the seed and essence of evil.  The ability to store productivity thus becomes love of power, fame, control... all the things that many of the the ubber elite seek in exchange for their souls.  Even many amongst the poor worship money to the extent that they support stealing and conveniently call it redistribution.  That is why it is necessary to have respect to what the balance between ego and consciousness is from an internal sense both mind and soul.  I don't believe that the world can psychologically or morally handle being God-less, i.e. complete detactment internally with anything more divine than that of self.  We have become a me-me-me nation of citizens with God complexes worshiping money.  We have to change a lot of things in this country, starting with how we think above all else.

----------


## eric_cartman

> Innovation is stifled by the monetary market system.  Nearly all sectors of undesirable labor can be replaced by automation.  The profit factor more often motivates rote labor than technological innovation.  Without the profit factor, innovation thrives.  This is especially true within video games.  I can actually even cite an example that I am aware of.  The computer game Civilization V.  The developers, motivated by profit factor, allowed extensive game modulation in Civilization IV.  One particularly innovative individual, motivated solely by innovative ambition, was constantly emailing the developers demanding for improved modulation that required new update patches.  All the employees designing Civ V, motivated by profit, did not come up with as much innovative new material as this one individual, so they actually decided to hire this person to do what he did solely for passion.


lol... that's your response? what a joke!!! 

you hardly addressed any of my points.  i asked you to describe the process by which a video game would be created in your world and you simply state that "innovation thrive[s]".  come on man... that's your answer? explain it in detail.

step 1) the people demand video games
step 2) you have to explain how the consoles and the games are created. 

you just simply imply that innovative volunteers will make all the games... yet you don't explain the precise process.

even in your example of Civ 5.... an entire company created a game, with many people working on the game... and ya, so what if one person had a good idea on how to improve the game... it still probably took hundreds of people working for a wage to implement his ideas.... it's not like this one guy could have made the game by himself.  and programming a game probably takes tens of thousands of lines of computer code.... you can't just claim that "automation will do all the undesirable programming work".

that's such a pathetic response you made.  

would you agree that it might take 2000 people, working for 2000 hours each to create a good video game these days? (that's 2000 people, working 40 hours a week, for a year).  And that you can't just have a super computer replace this work... you actually need this many people working to design and code all the different aspects of the game.  And that's just to make one game.  There's maybe a small team of people who actually come up with the creative aspects of the game... but the majority of these workers are preforming a very specialized task at the request of the managers of the company.  so you really think you'll have people who volunteer to do these crap programming jobs?  and even if you did... how will you organize them and force them to do their part for making the game.  how do you decide which game they ultimately decide to create out of all the different ideas? 

again, you rely on a "magic computer" to create video games which is complete nonsense.  you don't explain at all how land, labour and capital are organized in this system so that a quality video game can be produced. 

we can even look at real world examples.  there are lots of people who do in fact create "free-ware" and "open source" games.  sometimes you will have a small group of friends who get together to make a game just for the fun of it... but the games these people make are crap in comparison to the major games that the big companies create for profit.  so why are there not a whole bunch of high quality free video games these days?  the reason is that it takes thousands of people, working for thousands of hours to make a descent game.  there are a bunch of crap little games that individuals or small teams make for fun.... but all good video games are created as a result of huge teams working to program complex games.

so please enlighten me.... take me though the process from start to finish, in detail.  you can't just say "the computer will do it".  Do you really expect 2000 people to all join together and work for 2000 hours each (some doing really crap programming jobs) to create a video game they all agree on?  how do we know how many video games to make? how do we know which is the best console system to make, etc. 

there are so many questions that i've asked and you don't even begin to answer them.

----------


## Tonewah

*sigh*

----------


## hazek

Wow 59 pages, I wonder over what.

I mean it's a really simple issue:

The Zeitgeist/Venus project people have to find answer to just one very important question and I'll bow to their proposed system: *How will their computer know, what the future will bring?*

How will it know how many people will be born, how many people will die, what will the weather be like, what sort of natural disasters will happen, what inventions will be invented? How will their central computer know all of this?

And the reason why this single question is so important is because if the computer doesn't have an answer for it, how can it possibly know how to allocate the resources efficiently? And surveys of the people is not an answer because the answers are only in the moment of answering the questions and not only can but will change in the future.

Face it.

For this very simple reason, you have to have prices. Prices are the only thing that give us an efficient idea how to constantly readjust our production to the environment the future brings. No super computer can do that. Ever. If it could, we'd already have it. Stefan drives this point home at the 1:51:05 mark.

----------


## ClayTrainor



----------


## EndDaFed

Open source games suck my ass. It only takes roughly a team of 30 or more to make anything of quality.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> we can even look at real world examples.  there are lots of people who do in fact create "free-ware" and "open source" games.  sometimes you will have a small group of friends who get together to make a game just for the fun of it... but the games these people make are crap in comparison to the major games that the big companies create for profit.  so why are there not a whole bunch of high quality free video games these days?  the reason is that it takes thousands of people, working for thousands of hours to make a descent game.  there are a bunch of crap little games that individuals or small teams make for fun.... but all good video games are created as a result of huge teams working to program complex games.


I have to take a bit of issue with this.  There are many high quality, free games, that do so for the sake of trying to make a great game, not for the sake of profit.  I've played videogames since i was a small child, and most of the games that satisfy me the most are free Mods.  

For the last few years, I've been playing a game called "project reality" which is basically an open source mod for the Battlefield 2 engine.  It's a completely free mod, and the quality of the gameplay, imo, far surpasses anything on the market.  That being said, the engine it is built on is a result of the market, and people pursuing profit, and without that, this game would not exist as it is.

Also, the developers of this mod are working on a stand-alone sequel which will be sold for profit.  I can only imagine that a profit structure will improve this game, so long as they continue to target their niche market, instead of going after mainstream audiences.




The mod is updated on a regular basis, with massive additions.  The development teams seems far more dedicated to keeping this free game interesting, than any retail game I've purchased. 

Anyways, just wanted to throw that out there.  There are some SERIOUSLY high quality free games on the market, which do challenge the quality of games you pay for on the market.

----------


## dannno

^^Ya i used to play Quake 1 Team Fortress which was a free mod for the Quake 1 engine.. that was the best game I ever played.

----------


## eric_cartman

ya... it's true that people will volunteer to make video games, and the games are fun (after all, counter strike started off as a volunteer created half life mod)... but these volunteers tend to just create modifications of games that are already made (as you guys have noted).  to create a modern game from scratch takes a lot of work and is generally not done by these open source volunteer game makers. 

i actually think this video game issue is a good example... because clearly, there are plenty of talented volunteers out there who are willing to work hard and create a video game without a profit motive... and many of them work in teams and with friends over the internet. 

but when you compare the quality of the video games created by the free market system to the ones that are created by the volunteers without a profit motive... i think the games developed by the big game companies (like Activision) are of a much higher quality.  obviously some of these volunteer games are a lot of fun and some of them are actually pretty descent... but many of them are made off the backs (using the same engine) of the free market gaming companies.

so even in an industry where you have lots of talented volunteers willing to work hard... they can't even really come close to creating the same quality of a product as the free market.  And video games are sort of a fun industry to begin with.... other occupations (like Proctology) will not have the same number of volunteers who are willing to do this unenjoyable work.

----------


## Wesker1982

I hope I can find my copy of BF2

----------


## ClayTrainor

> ya... it's true that people will volunteer to make video games, and the games are fun (after all, counter strike started off as a volunteer created half life mod)... but these volunteers tend to just create modifications of games that are already made (as you guys have noted).  to create a modern game from scratch takes a lot of work and is generally not done by these open source volunteer game makers. 
> 
> i actually think this video game issue is a good example... because clearly, there are plenty of talented volunteers out there who are willing to work hard and create a video game without a profit motive... and many of them work in teams and with friends over the internet. 
> 
> but when you compare the quality of the video games created by the free market system to the ones that are created by the volunteers without a profit motive... i think the games developed by the big game companies (like Activision) are of a much higher quality.  obviously some of these volunteer games are a lot of fun and some of them are actually pretty descent... but many of them are made off the backs (using the same engine) of the free market gaming companies.
> 
> so even in an industry where you have lots of talented volunteers willing to work hard... they can't even really come close to creating the same quality of a product as the free market.  And video games are sort of a fun industry to begin with.... other occupations (like Proctology) will not have the same number of volunteers who are willing to do this unenjoyable work.


all great points!  im in full agreement...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I hope I can find my copy of BF2


If you can't, it's only like $5 for a copy these days.

----------


## Vessol

> Open source games suck my ass. It only takes roughly a team of 30 or more to make anything of quality.


I take it you've never heard of Dwarf Fortress?

It's probably one of the most indepth games ever created. 
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

Created by *one* ex-math professor who ended up leaving his job and he lives off of DONATIONS given to him by his fans. He usually receives 3000-5000$ a month, but the last big release he got like 16,000$ FROM DONATIONS. His brother helps him a bit with designing features, but he is the singular programmer.

There are tons of other examples of amazing games that are created independently(some are even open source, such as Nethack) with a very small team or a singular individual. Honestly, most games I play today are independently developed games. Really well made, and I feel a lot better when I buy those games as it goes directly to the developer instead of the huge publishing companies.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Great, so Jim, you're saying butt doctors will choose their career based on their passions??
> 
> I think I'd rather have a butt doctor who is in it for the money..


A passion for understanding the human body is not uncommon.



> Im having problems with the lack of details about volunteer shortages myself
> 
> 
> I assume, that all the information to become a proctologist is available for free, is in development, and that any doctor can obtain this information. 
> I also consider there is a need for a participation coordination system that highlights the need for specilaists and that proctologists might be high on the list. 
> 
> So that medical students have both the information that its labeled a priority and that there is insufficient volunteers, retired proctologist may also see this and volunteer part time for patient consultations and/or to work with creative teams knowledge systems specialists.  In addition, this situation will also show up for knowlege/systems engineers and a number of inventive people looking to automate the least interesting jobs, and this automation will be prioritized. 
> 
> There may be a case for including a system of incentive (other than money as we know it) for volunteers that help with jobs for which there's a shortage of volunteers. One possibility is a reservation points that allow people to make reservations further ahead of time.


Awesome.  Somebody who actually gets it.

I'm sure a hundred years ago the majority of folks weren't yet convinced that a replacement to using horses for transport was about to become mainstream.  A replacement to using money for distribution will become mainstream soon enough.

One thing that hasn't even entered the proctologist debate here is that there really isn't much in proctology that can't be automated.  To say that even brain surgery will be automated isn't at all far-fetched.

----------


## Travlyr

> One thing that hasn't even entered the proctologist debate here is that there really isn't much in proctology that can't be automated.  To say that even brain surgery will be automated isn't at all far-fetched.


Meh... you watch too much science fiction TV. Look out your window, there is a real life outside just waiting for you to enjoy. 

Let's don't be too quick to get rid of medical doctors. You won't be finding me at some brain surgery machine. Human interaction is not all bad.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Meh... you watch too much science fiction TV. Look out your window, there is a real life outside just waiting for you to enjoy. 
> 
> Let's don't be too quick to get rid of medical doctors. You won't be finding me at some brain surgery machine. Human interaction is not all bad.


I did quite a bit of enjoying the blizzard last week indeed, and it's not very accurate to assume that a man who actually bicycled 370 miles in 3 days across the state of Wisconson is somebody who isn't aware of enjoying the great outdoors.

Automated labor isn't what is fascinating to me.  The opportunity to enjoy life to the fullest that automation provides within an elegant system is. 

It's pretty obvious as well that we are two humans interacting here, we're just using a computer as a tool to achieve that.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's pretty obvious as well that we are two humans interacting here, we're just using a computer as a tool to achieve that.


I'm just not as ready as you to let computers make decisions for me. You can abide by your computer's instructions if you wish, just don't impose your computer's decisions on me. Okay?

----------


## Jim Casey

> I'm just not as ready as you to let computers make decisions for me. You can abide by your computer's instructions if you wish, just don't impose your computer's decisions on me. Okay?


Understood.  I have friends with similar sentiments regarding automobiles.  They like making the decisions themselves, so they prefer to own cars that are too old to have computers integrated into their systems.  They'll probably still romanticize doing the driving themselves even after self driven cars become mainstream.

----------


## Travlyr

> Understood.  I have friends with similar sentiments regarding automobiles.  They like making the decisions themselves, so they prefer to own cars that are too old to have computers integrated into their systems.


I am very much like that too. I don't even like my driver's window to automatically roll all the way down. I prefer to be in control when possible.

----------


## Travlyr

> They'll probably still romanticize doing the driving themselves even after self driven cars become mainstream.


Me too! I'd be afraid the computer will get a virus and drive me over a cliff!

----------


## Jeremy

I don't see how supporters of the Venus Project can say it's not central planning.

----------


## Jeremy

> Open source games suck my ass. It only takes roughly a team of 30 or more to make anything of quality.


Lol, Age of Empires rip off. And yeah, Age of Empires was a for-profit game.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Human interaction is not all bad.


Who needs people, when you got robots?

----------


## noxagol



----------


## Travlyr

> Who needs people, when you got robots?


Lol... a nice shapely female robot... hummmm... imagine the possibilities.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Me too! I'd be afraid the computer will get a virus and drive me over a cliff!


That hasn't happened so far.  It won't be long before it becomes accepted as self evident that automated driving increases traffic safety. 





> I don't see how supporters of the Venus Project can say it's not central planning.


Central planning is a phrase that doesn't really apply.  Everybody has input on the decision making process and everyone else has access to awareness of that input.  The planning is more decentralized than is possible in any other way.  Even in the ideal free market concept of decentralized economic planning, there is absolutely no real method of transparency.  Private property rights being respected and all, decisions can all be made behind closed doors.

----------


## Travlyr

> That hasn't happened so far.  It won't be long before it becomes accepted as self evident that automated driving increases traffic safety.


Too trusting for my tastes. Are you sure that these cars won't drive you straight to FEMA camp?  

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

----------


## EndDaFed

> Lol, Age of Empires rip off. And yeah, Age of Empires was a for-profit game.


Yeah and all first person shooters are a rip off of Wolfenstein 3D going by your logic. Nothing new has been added since.  Unless you have proof that they copied the code base of AOE your point is moot.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Too trusting for my tastes. Are you sure that these cars won't drive you straight to FEMA camp?  
> 
> "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Humans are naturally very trusting.  Unsound societies breed distrust.  There is also something psychologically unsound with the idea of anybody else not deserving safety for making a decision that didn't jive with some philosophical notion called liberty. 



> Yeah and all first person shooters are a rip off of Wolfenstein 3D going by your logic. Nothing new has been added since.  Unless you have proof that they copied the code base of AOE your point is moot.


Anybody here have the Kinect?  I love playing Dance Central.

----------


## Sentient Void

Of course it's central planning. It's central planning incarnate, and arbitrarirly claiming it to the contrary is not a valid argument. 

Communism is a central authority having full control over all means of production. This is what you advocate - just with a supercomputer programmed (controlled) by interdisciplinary teams (a small elite). 

Techno-crypto-communism.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Of course it's central planning. It's central planning incarnate, and arbitrarirly claiming it to the contrary is not a valid argument. 
> 
> Communism is a central authority having full control over all means of production. This is what you advocate - just with a supercomputer programmed (controlled) by interdisciplinary teams (a small elite). 
> 
> Techno-crypto-communism.


The interdisciplinary teams are not a small elite.  Everyone can contribute to the process.  Primitive experiments like central planning, communism, capitalism, fascism, ect. have absolutely nothing to do with elegantly designed systems management.  Folks who inherently distrust this new approach will justify their fear with alarmist comparisons that have no sound reasoning behind them.

"Society today is sick, and the illness permeates all life systems within, and I see The Zeitgeist Movement as the immune system of the social world, if you will."
http://vimeo.com/10707453

----------


## dannno

> The interdisciplinary teams are not a small elite.  *Everyone can contribute to the process.*  Primitive experiments like central planning, communism, capitalism, fascism, ect. have absolutely nothing to do with elegantly designed systems management.  Folks who inherently distrust this new approach will justify their fear with alarmist comparisons that have no sound reasoning behind them.


Have you ever worked in systems design with a program like Vensim? I actually took a Master's Degree program in System's Management and IT, which isn't as advanced as say Systems Engineering but I still got quite a bit of exposure to the field. 



As much as you don't think you will have to deal with a lot of stuff in the above system's model, like cash flows, capital, investment and such, you actually will be dealing with more since those things are mechanisms for how much various resources are available and should therefore be used, you will need to have alternative types of resources in case you start using too much of one type of resource, thus beginning to deplete it. These are all jobs that cash flow and prices take care of on their own. And it will need to be done for everything imaginable. 

These things are actually pretty damn complex, you are working with mathematical equations at each of those points and the computer produces output which can be analyzed by the program using data tables or graphs. I admit these models can be very handy, and potentially useful.

The vast majority of people are never going to be able to understand how these things work, in fact I have a really difficult time understanding them and I love this kind of stuff. Therefore it will be a small group of people designing these systems, it will be the people who are interested in and excel in System's Engineering.




Since you are looking at the planet, you will need to create designs like the following:



Then you will have to link it to every other species that effects those other species. Even then, it's still a "model" and not reality. The results aren't always going to be the same, you can rarely capture every single factor in a system's design.

In fact the thing I learned the most about creating these types of mathematical models is that it is nearly impossible to include ALL of the factors that affect the outcome in the model. It is almost always nearly impossible to predict not only what the factors will be, but the weight of those factors. 

Looking at the above model, the funny thing is you don't need the model and the complex mathematical equations in real life, all that stuff happens on its own the way it is supposed to.  The market works the same way. You can make a model to simulate the market, but you won't be able to capture everything that the market captures on its own. The model is merely meant to SIMULATE reality. When my roommate who is a ZM coordinator talks about this stuff he always talks about building these complex models for making stuff and keeping track of all these resources when to me it seems like a complete waste of time.. Just like the tadpoles and the spores and the fungus, the market works on its own.. To try and model it, unless it is done absolutely perfect, will not arrive at the most efficient answer. And really, the only purpose of the model is to try and add factors alter the outcome if it isn't what you need it to be.. but whatever can be added to the economic model is already available to individuals and entrepreneurs in the free market.. But usually it is government that tries to add things to the model, and by using taxation and force, unless they are protecting property or individuals the government always makes a less efficient system. Always. The market creates the most efficient possible system based on the abilities of the individuals involved and the resources available.

A perfect system's model will never be built, so there will always be shortages of certain goods and overages of others and so people will inevitably trade and start producing things themselves, hoarding food so there aren't shortages, etc.. Kind of like how there are 7 people at my house, we all use toilet paper. Therefore one person goes to Costco and buys 36 rolls at a time. I have tp hoarded in my room, in case there is an emergency or economic collapse, but also because it turns out the toilet paper is much more likely to run out when it is a shared resource that one of us has to go get as compared to when I had my own bathroom and purchased my own toilet paper.. I NEVER EVER EVER ran out then, because I knew it was my primary responsibility. You start sharing responsibilities like that, and there can be some benefits, but there are also detrimental consequences such as running out. So I hoard some in my room, and when we run out, I end up coming to the rescue and supply everybody with TP until we can go out and get some more.. Because I'm a "hoarder" aka "saver" aka "property owner", all of which are frowned upon in the Zeitgeist movement. "Oh, but we can have reserves in the Zeitgeist community", you might say.. but we DO have reserves of TP, but because it is a shared reserve, there is not the incentive for each person to keep it replenished as it would be if it were there own. This is one of the "tragedies of the commons", which is the title of an episode of "John Stossel" that I highly recommend you checkout.

----------


## Jim Casey

The market makes the best system to serve the financial interests of the few with the most financial means.  Regard for natural resources, human survival, and social well-being is only a factor in the market insofar as it affects profitability.  Any market models are only useful for the same reason the market itself is.

As awareness spreads within the vast majority of the world's population that there is no regard for their existence much less well-being inside the market system, with the sole exception being whether or not there is some way they can be profitable to those few with the most financial means, the incentive to model and implement a superior alternative system will spark interest and activity at a level most folks can hardly imagine today.

----------


## hazek

> The interdisciplinary teams are not a small elite.  Everyone can contribute to the process.  Primitive experiments like central planning, communism, capitalism, fascism, ect. have absolutely nothing to do with elegantly designed systems management.  Folks who inherently distrust this new approach will justify their fear with alarmist comparisons that have no sound reasoning behind them.
> 
> "Society today is sick, and the illness permeates all life systems within, and I see The Zeitgeist Movement as the immune system of the social world, if you will."
> http://vimeo.com/10707453


Please address my post:




> Wow 59 pages, I wonder over what.
> 
> I mean it's a really simple issue:
> 
> The Zeitgeist/Venus project people have to find answer to just one very important question and I'll bow to their proposed system: *How will their computer know, what the future will bring?*
> 
> How will it know how many people will be born, how many people will die, what will the weather be like, what sort of natural disasters will happen, what inventions will be invented? How will their central computer know all of this?
> 
> And the reason why this single question is so important is because if the computer doesn't have an answer for it, how can it possibly know how to allocate the resources efficiently? And surveys of the people is not an answer because the answers are only in the moment of answering the questions and not only can but will change in the future.
> ...

----------


## ClayTrainor

So, Jim. How you plan on getting access to my property is still unclear to me. If your plan is to convince me to give it to you and TZM, i've told you how you can do it. Use the scientific method, Get me 5 top of the line computers for free, and I'll consider investing some of what I own, into your idea. Deal? If not, how do you plan on convincing me to give your movement my stuff?

----------


## dannno

> The market makes the best system to serve the financial interests of the few with the most financial means.


That is not true at all in a free market. Everybody benefits in a true free market. I hear these arguments that free markets will some how "lead" to tyranny as successful people rise up, but some how if we are only able to limit the ability of people to save and invest, it is argued that these interests won't rise up.. But in reality this action in and of itself always leads to a monopoly of power and control, the monied interests take control of that mechanism and then it is in fact THAT system which serves the financial interests of the few with the most financial means. The only way to get rid of that is to get rid of the mechanism of control, which is precisely what we are advocating.






> Regard for natural resources, human survival, and social well-being is only a factor in the market insofar as it affects profitability.  Any market models are only useful for the same reason the market itself is.


That's not true either. As natural resources become more scarce, they become more valuable and thus less affordable. The free market does take into account the level of natural resources, it's just that people in the ZM have little understanding of how a free market functions and why.

As far as human survival and social well-being, that's where protection of property rights comes in. Profitability cannot come at the expense of others in a free market where private property is protected.





> As awareness spreads within the vast majority of the world's population that there is no regard for their existence much less well-being inside the market system, with the sole exception being whether or not there is some way they can be profitable to those few with the most financial means, the incentive to model and implement a superior alternative system will spark interest and activity at a level most folks can hardly imagine today.


In a free market, if a particular business is highly profitable then other business come in and compete. This increases supply, reduces the prices, and thus reduces the profits in that particular business. The only way you can get monopolies where profits are really high is if government force is used. As Stef mentioned, profitability in a free market is usually about 2-5%. Where it is higher is due to government regulations, subsidies, etc, all things that we free market opponents abhor.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Please address my post:


Production readjustments can take place more efficiently without the concern of profitability.  The readjustments to production are done to serve profitability due to changes in the market environment, production doesn't adjust due to any concerns of sustainability in the real world environment such as impending depletion, mass starvation, social upheaval, etc., the production adjustments only take place to jive with profitability concerns.

Without prices, real world environmental concerns are addressed when production readjustments are applied.  No need to predict any future, just simple data collection and implementation according to current knowledge.



> So, Jim. How you plan on getting access to my property is still unclear to me. If your plan is to convince me to give it to you and TZM, i've told you how you can do it. Use the scientific method, Get me 5 top of the line computers for free, and I'll consider investing some of what I own, into your idea. Deal? If not, how do you plan on convincing me to give your movement my stuff?


TZM isn't concerned with your stuff.  The concept or property will be rendered obsolete.  TZM isn't about playing Santa Claus hoping you'll be a good boy.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> TZM isn't concerned with your stuff.  The concept or property will be rendered obsolete.


The concept of property will be rendered obsolete by what?  Your promises?  Sorry, but I need empirical evidence, before I can take your claims seriously.

----------


## Jim Casey

> That is not true at all in a free market. Everybody benefits in a true free market. I hear these arguments that free markets will some how "lead" to tyranny as successful people rise up, but some how if we are only able to limit the ability of people to save and invest, it is argued that these interests won't rise up.. But in reality this action in and of itself always leads to a monopoly of power and control, the monied interests take control of that mechanism and then it is in fact THAT system which serves the financial interests of the few with the most financial means. The only way to get rid of that is to get rid of the mechanism of control, which is precisely what we are advocating.


The market benefits only apply to profitability.  Only so many people can save and invest.  Bankruptcy is build into the system.  It's a game of musical chairs with survival at risk, a game with dire social consequences.



> That's not true either. As natural resources become more scarce, they become more valuable and thus less affordable. The free market does take into account the level of natural resources, it's just that people in the ZM have little understanding of how a free market functions and why.


The market takes profitability into account first and foremost.  Scarcity is more profitable than sustainability, so the market favors scarcity.



> As far as human survival and social well-being, that's where protection of property rights comes in. Profitability cannot come at the expense of others in a free market where private property is protected.


Profitability always comes at the expense of others.  Bankruptcy is build into the system.  Countless folks believed the land, the house, the cars, ect. was theirs right up to the point when it was liquidated.



> In a free market, if a particular business is highly profitable then other business come in and compete. This increases supply, reduces the prices, and thus reduces the profits in that particular business. The only way you can get monopolies where profits are really high is if government force is used. As Stef mentioned, profitability in a free market is usually about 2-5%. Where it is higher is due to government regulations, subsidies, etc, all things that we free market opponents abhor.


Financial stratification of individuals within a market system always increases.  Efforts to avoid monopolies or other forms of collusion only take place insofar as how those efforts affect profitability.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The concept of property will be rendered obsolete by what?  Your promises?  Sorry, but I need empirical evidence, before I can take your claims seriously.


The concept of property originates in scarcity.  In sustainability, property rights are discouraged as a threat to sustainability.  Egalitarian hunter gatherer societies are a prime example of empirical evidence.

----------


## EndDaFed

This thread should be renamed the never ending thread.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The concept of property originates in scarcity.  In sustainability, property rights are discouraged as a threat to sustainability.


Use the scientific method, and demonstrate for me in an empirical way how you can provide a sustainable abundance of resources to me and my family at no cost, and I will be on board.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This thread should be renamed the never ending thread.


This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends... Some people started posting, and not knowing what it was, but they'll continue posting on forever just because this is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends... Some people started posting, and not knowing what it was, but they'll continue posting on forever just because this is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends... Some people started posting, and not knowing what it was, but they'll continue posting on forever just because this is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends... Some people started posting, and not knowing what it was, but they'll continue posting on forever just because this is the thread that never ends,

----------


## dannno

> The market benefits only apply to profitability.  Only so many people can save and invest.


No, everybody saves and invests in the free market. The investment could be a toaster, so you don't have to go outside and make a campfire to heat up your bread. It might be a house with running water, so you don't have to go down the stream to collect water every day.  It saves time and resources so those time and resources can be better spent making other things.





> Bankruptcy is build into the system.  It's a game of musical chairs with survival at risk, a game with dire social consequences.


You are confusing the free market with our current system again. Bankruptcy is not inherently built into a free market, it is built into a monetary system where the money supply is created as debt, and the interest to pay off the loans is never created. That is precisely how Zeitgeist explains it. When a currency in the free market is being created out of thin air, people stop using it in favor of something better, like gold or silver. Let's say a relatively poor person with a small art store has a little gold and silver, and a rich person has a lot. Let's say the rich person hoards the gold and silver for themselves. Guess what? That makes the relatively poor person's gold and silver MORE VALUABLE. They can now buy more stuff with it. If the rich person went out and spent the gold, then guess what? They went and spent it at the art store, and now the poor person has more silver and gold. 

*There are no valid arguments for how the actions of a wealthy person hurts others in society, UNLESS they are using the monopoly force of government to prevent others from buying, selling or creating something. This is of course anti-free market. So I challenge you to list ONE single action that a rich person can take within the confines of a free market system that is bad for society as a whole. You can't. The reason a person is rich in a free market is because they have created more products and services which have been made available to everyone. Everyone benefits.*






> The market takes profitability into account first and foremost.  Scarcity is more profitable than sustainability, so the market favors scarcity.


The market only favors scarcity when force is used. Once again, not free market. When profitability is high in a free market, then more businesses come in. Existing businesses like to use government force to stop others from producing, but in a free market this would not occur. Scarcity decreases and prices decrease as others come in to produce.





> Financial stratification of individuals within a market system always increases.  Efforts to avoid monopolies or other forms of collusion only take place insofar as how those efforts affect profitability.


No, what happens is people get brainwashed into thinking that the government should be given the power to stop monopolies from forming. That is precisely what the elite wanted to happen. This allows them to psychologically impair people into thinking that monopolies some how arise naturally, without government force, and government force is necessary to stop them. So what ends up happening is more power is granted to government, they use that power to create monopolies, and then they simply uphold the monopolies they have created instead of keeping their promise to get rid of them.

----------


## EndDaFed

do {

cout << "Jim Casey/: A resource based economy is possible." << endl; 
cout << "ClayTrainor/: It can't be possible because it does not address the calculation problem." << endl;
cout << "dannno/: My roommate is a Zeitgeist fan." << endl; 
cout << "Dark Helmet/: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate." << endl;

} while (b_SunIsNotARedGiant == true);

----------


## ClayTrainor

> do {
> 
> cout << "Jim Casey/: A resource based economy is possible." << endl; 
> cout << "ClayTrainor/: It can't be possible because it does not address the calculation problem." << endl;
> cout << "dannno/: My roommate is a Zeitgeist fan." << endl; 
> cout << "Dark Helmet/: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate." << endl;
> 
> } while (b_SunIsNotARedGiant == true);


hahahah, well played!  

This guy should write the Zeitgeist Distribution algorithm! 

What programming language are you mimicking?

----------


## EndDaFed

> hahahah, well played!  
> 
> This guy should write the Zeitgeist Distribution algorithm! 
> 
> What programming language are you mimicking?


I think it's called $#@! plus plus size but that is just rude.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I think it's called $#@! plus plus size but that is just rude.


$#@! is quite possibly the most powerful word in the English dictionary.

This thread officially deserves to start dying, lol.

----------


## dannno

> $#@! is quite possibly the most powerful word in the English dictionary.


I heard it used to pack even more of a whallup back in the 80s

----------


## hazek

> Production readjustments can take place more efficiently without the concern of profitability.  The readjustments to production are done to serve profitability due to changes in the market environment, production doesn't adjust due to any concerns of sustainability in the real world environment such as impending depletion, mass starvation, social upheaval, etc., the production adjustments only take place to jive with profitability concerns.


You are wrong. If something is starting to run out, prices go up, I mean it's economics 101 of supply and demand.. If there's something people don't want prices go down and the business usually goes out of business.




> Without prices, real world environmental concerns are addressed when production readjustments are applied.  No need to predict any future, just simple data collection and implementation according to current knowledge.


Ok but you didn't answer my question at all.

I'll give you an simple example since it appears "predicting the future" is so broad you don't even realize what that entails:

Let's say in your Zeigeist world with the central computer someone comes up with a crazy new invention = a helicopter. Now this is a very promising product because you can travel faster and further and you don't need to build roads. Please explain to me how the computer is going to know how many helicopters to build? 1 for every person? I mean we all have to travel.. 1 per every 5 people that fit into one? How is this magical computer going to know how many resources to spend on it's production. Or! Even prior to production how is it going to know a crazy invention like the helicopter is even worth of producing in the first place?

See the free market can very easily answer these kind of questions through prices. How does your computer predict the future?

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> This thread should be renamed the never ending thread.


[sings]This is the thread that never ends, its goes on and on my friends. Some people started typing not knowing what it was and they'll continue forever just because.....[/sing]

----------


## Jim Casey

> You are wrong. If something is starting to run out, prices go up, I mean it's economics 101 of supply and demand.. If there's something people don't want prices go down and the business usually goes out of business.


Price fluctuations and their effect on profitability hinder attempts at sustainability.  The fact that scarcity of a commodity makes it more profitable means that running out of it asap is most profitable.  This is not efficient productivity in terms of global resource management.

If industry no longer requires labor due to automation, labor can't be cut out of the equation so easily without it effecting profitability of all industries.  It's impossible for efficiency to be maximized when people work jobs that are technologically obsolete.  However, industry still requires consumption for profitability, so efficiency is compromised and people are stuck in obsolete jobs.



> Ok but you didn't answer my question at all.
> 
> I'll give you an simple example since it appears "predicting the future" is so broad you don't even realize what that entails:
> 
> Let's say in your Zeigeist world with the central computer someone comes up with a crazy new invention = a helicopter. Now this is a very promising product because you can travel faster and further and you don't need to build roads. Please explain to me how the computer is going to know how many helicopters to build? 1 for every person? I mean we all have to travel.. 1 per every 5 people that fit into one? How is this magical computer going to know how many resources to spend on it's production. Or! Even prior to production how is it going to know a crazy invention like the helicopter is even worth of producing in the first place?
> 
> See the free market can very easily answer these kind of questions through prices. How does your computer predict the future?


Simple access surveys are all that's needed, no divination necessary.  How much time each day do how many people need to access a particular helicopter?  How sustainable would it be to meet access demand considering resources available?

With the amount of resources freed up from the need for cyclical consumption, resource allocation for innovation won't be as stifled by profitability as it is today.  



> No, everybody saves and invests in the free market. The investment could be a toaster, so you don't have to go outside and make a campfire to heat up your bread. It might be a house with running water, so you don't have to go down the stream to collect water every day.  It saves time and resources so those time and resources can be better spent making other things.


Today few folks save and fewer invest.  In order to save and invest, you need to have money or income.  If you don't, you have to trade to get it.  People most often trade their labor for wages.  Automation is making the labor for wages game inefficient.



> You are confusing the free market with our current system again. Bankruptcy is not inherently built into a free market, it is built into a monetary system where the money supply is created as debt, and the interest to pay off the loans is never created. That is precisely how Zeitgeist explains it. When a currency in the free market is being created out of thin air, people stop using it in favor of something better, like gold or silver. Let's say a relatively poor person with a small art store has a little gold and silver, and a rich person has a lot. Let's say the rich person hoards the gold and silver for themselves. Guess what? That makes the relatively poor person's gold and silver MORE VALUABLE. They can now buy more stuff with it. If the rich person went out and spent the gold, then guess what? They went and spent it at the art store, and now the poor person has more silver and gold.


This kind of quaint sentiment really makes concerns about sustainability of resource production and distribution seem rather cold and dry.  Who wouldn't prefer to fantasize about being an artist whose work is admired by the wealthy?  There couldn't possibly be any negative social effects from coercing folks into participating in financial games for their very survival.



> *There are no valid arguments for how the actions of a wealthy person hurts others in society, UNLESS they are using the monopoly force of government to prevent others from buying, selling or creating something. This is of course anti-free market. So I challenge you to list ONE single action that a rich person can take within the confines of a free market system that is bad for society as a whole. You can't. The reason a person is rich in a free market is because they have created more products and services which have been made available to everyone. Everyone benefits.*


Monopoly force of government and its use or lack thereof won't change the fact that sustainability is not consistent with profitability.  Nor does monopoly force of government and its use or lack thereof change the fact that automated labor means productivity increases with less employment.  

Ultimately the means to acquire income will rely solely upon an individual's ability to be of some kind of value to those who have the most wealth.  If they can't, their very survival is severely threatened by choosing to respect property rights.  This is not indicative of a sound society.



> The market only favors scarcity when force is used. Once again, not free market. When profitability is high in a free market, then more businesses come in. Existing businesses like to use government force to stop others from producing, but in a free market this would not occur. Scarcity decreases and prices decrease as others come in to produce.


Businesses and consumers pay no heed to the effects on the environment outside of it's effect on profitability.  Efficiency and sustainability are not optimized, profit is.



> No, what happens is people get brainwashed into thinking that the government should be given the power to stop monopolies from forming. That is precisely what the elite wanted to happen. This allows them to psychologically impair people into thinking that monopolies some how arise naturally, without government force, and government force is necessary to stop them. So what ends up happening is more power is granted to government, they use that power to create monopolies, and then they simply uphold the monopolies they have created instead of keeping their promise to get rid of them.


What other choice do people have if they can't get a job or feed their families?  If the free market fails to provide, their options to voluntarily participate are limited indeed.  The system itself coerces folks into menial jobs that are obsolete and hinder productivity just for the sake of keeping the system going.  Folks like to obscure the financial coercion inherent in the system by overshadowing the issue with the government force issue.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Jim, didn't you see the dropping of the c-bomb?

This thread is dead, there's no point in continuing it.  The c-bomb has laid waste and destruction to it all...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jim, didn't you see the dropping of the c-bomb?
> 
> This thread is dead, there's no point in continuing it.  The c-bomb has laid waste and destruction to it all...


What a pity.  R.I.P., thread.

----------


## dannno

> Today few folks save and fewer invest.  In order to save and invest, you need to have money or income.


No, few folks save and invest because we have a central bank and they keep the interest rates artificially low. This encourages people to go into debt. A high interest rate, on the other hand, encourages people to save. Again, all of these problems you are talking about are because we DON'T live in a free market. There is not one problem you can point to that can't be answered with "that's because we don't live in a free market". 





> People most often trade their labor for wages.  Automation is making the labor for wages game inefficient.


No it isn't, automation increases production, lowers prices, and in a free market without licensing, regulations and high taxes people would easily be able to shift to other sectors of the economy and produce different types of products or services without govt. interference. It is the government interference that is preventing people from being able to transition naturally into other sectors.




> This kind of quaint sentiment really makes concerns about sustainability of resource production and distribution seem rather cold and dry.  Who wouldn't prefer to fantasize about being an artist whose work is admired by the wealthy?  There couldn't possibly be any negative social effects from coercing folks into participating in financial games for their very survival.


Dude, there are a lot of artists out there who do quite well. 

As we become more wealthy and more productive, prices drop and it becomes more affordable to help an artist survive off of their work. If it takes an average of 30 people a year to support a particular type of artist in a comfortable lifestyle, then if our technology doubled and we became twice as productive, it would only take 15 people a year to support that type of artist.. we could then support twice as many of them. Don't you see how this completely destroys the theory that increases in technology hurts workers?? It actually helps them move into other perhaps more enjoyable professions (manual labor isn't the most enjoyable profession)





> Monopoly force of government and its use or lack thereof won't change the fact that sustainability is not consistent with profitability.


Yes it is, if something isn't sustainable then it won't be profitable in the future. That means whatever means of production they are using will become more expensive over time and the way in which they do things will inevitably have to change.. whereas the person with the sustainable model won't have to change, they will ultimately win out. Prices take care of ALL of this stuff you are complaining about.





> Nor does monopoly force of government and its use or lack thereof change the fact that automated labor means productivity increases with less employment.


Again, employment stays the same, the people who get laid off just get to perform different services now that we have the added productivity to support those services... IF government lets them and doesn't drown people in regulations and licensing.






> Ultimately the means to acquire income will rely solely upon an individual's ability to be of some kind of value to those who have the most wealth.


No, the means to acquire income may rely upon an individuals ability to be of some kind of value to a few people with a lot of wealth, or a lot of people with less wealth. A person might decide to do something that is more enjoyable but adds less value to society, and they won't make as much money, but they are happy with what they are doing. Another person might decide to do the thing that adds more value to society, make more money and it will be worth it to them that they aren't enjoying their job as much because they enjoy the fruits of their labor instead. It's a trade-off.

----------


## dannno

> Jim, didn't you see the dropping of the c-bomb?
> 
> This thread is dead, there's no point in continuing it.  The c-bomb has laid waste and destruction to it all...


I guess I didn't get the memo.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I guess I didn't get the memo.


haha, I'm just playin' around, not trying to tell anyone what to do.  Usually when I see the c-bomb, I have to start re-evaluating the current situation.  It's a powerful word, haha.

This thread does seem to be getting rather monotonous and useless though, wouldn't you agree?  Everyone is just going through an infinite loop, sorta like End Da Feds code mimicked, lol.   Maybe it's just me.

----------


## __27__

> haha, I'm just playin' around, not trying to tell anyone what to do.  Usually when I see the c-bomb, I have to start re-evaluating the current situation.  It's a powerful word, haha.
> 
> This thread does seem to be getting rather monotonous and useless though, wouldn't you agree?  Everyone is just going through an infinite loop, sorta like End Da Feds code mimicked, lol.   Maybe it's just me.


Concurred.  After listening to the V radio with Stef, I think there may be some free thinkers in TZM who could be great allies, but Jim here doesn't represent them well.

----------


## Jim Casey

> No, few folks save and invest because we have a central bank and they keep the interest rates artificially low. This encourages people to go into debt. A high interest rate, on the other hand, encourages people to save. Again, all of these problems you are talking about are because we DON'T live in a free market. There is not one problem you can point to that can't be answered with "that's because we don't live in a free market".


There has to be debt for people to save and invest.  People want a return on their capital investment, and the interest created is debt.  

Any problem that applies to market values can be answered with free market advocacy, but the market does nothing but distort social values regardless of level of government interference.




> No it isn't, automation increases production, lowers prices, and in a free market without licensing, regulations and high taxes people would easily be able to shift to other sectors of the economy and produce different types of products or services without govt. interference. It is the government interference that is preventing people from being able to transition naturally into other sectors


Coercing people into other obsolete service sectors to continue playing financial games is a practice that will come to an end.  Repeat violent offenders in prison often cite "lack of respect" from some one as a justification for initiating violence.  The social ramifications of submitting to being whatever kind of dancing monkey those with the most financial influence want us to be cannot be understated.



> Dude, there are a lot of artists out there who do quite well. 
> 
> As we become more wealthy and more productive, prices drop and it becomes more affordable to help an artist survive off of their work. If it takes an average of 30 people a year to support a particular type of artist in a comfortable lifestyle, then if our technology doubled and we became twice as productive, it would only take 15 people a year to support that type of artist.. we could then support twice as many of them. Don't you see how this completely destroys the theory that increases in technology hurts workers?? It actually helps them move into other perhaps more enjoyable professions (manual labor isn't the most enjoyable profession)


Whatever form of artistry I create would have to be modified to please those with the most wealth.  I don't value art as a means of appeasing the wealthy.  I value art as an expression of something that needs to be expressed, regardless of profitability.

I intend to remain a package sorter for as long as sorters at the 6029 UPS hub haven't been replaced by automation, mainly because I strongly agree with Hoffa when he asserts that the best civil rights program is a Teamster contract.



> Yes it is, if something isn't sustainable then it won't be profitable in the future. That means whatever means of production they are using will become more expensive over time and the way in which they do things will inevitably have to change.. whereas the person with the sustainable model won't have to change, they will ultimately win out. Prices take care of ALL of this stuff you are complaining about.


Ever increasing profits aren't at all hindered by environmental sustainability threats.  Regardless of the increase of prices, nature is a dictatorship and strategies to game more profit off the system don't take that into consideration at any fundamental level.  



> Again, employment stays the same, the people who get laid off just get to perform different services now that we have the added productivity to support those services... IF government lets them and doesn't drown people in regulations and licensing.


What if it isn't the government, but the individuals themselves who ultimately refuse to play any more financial games to survive?  What specific different services must we slaves perform to appease the masters of the system once automation makes nearly every service sector job inefficient?



> No, the means to acquire income may rely upon an individuals ability to be of some kind of value to a few people with a lot of wealth, or a lot of people with less wealth. A person might decide to do something that is more enjoyable but adds less value to society, and they won't make as much money, but they are happy with what they are doing. Another person might decide to do the thing that adds more value to society, make more money and it will be worth it to them that they aren't enjoying their job as much because they enjoy the fruits of their labor instead. It's a trade-off.


The fruits of one's labor means nothing more than the fruits of the earth.  The market system itself has got to go.  Then folks can really begin adding value to society, outside of socially darwinistic games that those with the most wealth want to play with our lives.

----------


## dannno

> There has to be debt for people to save and invest.


Jesus Christ.

Please, do yourself a favor:

Updated version:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Gr.../dp/047052670X


Old version on youtube:

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jesus Christ.
> 
> Please, do yourself a favor:
> 
> Updated version:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Gr.../dp/047052670X
> 
> 
> Old version on youtube:


I've already watched that one.  Don't forget, I was a rather zealous advocate of the free market for quite some time.  I would much prefer to watch this again.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I've already watched that one. Don't forget, I was a rather zealous advocate of the free market for quite some time.


I don't believe you.




> I would much prefer to watch this again.


Amen.

----------


## dannno

> I've already watched that one.  Don't forget, I was a rather zealous advocate of the free market for quite some time.


Then why did you say savings and investment requires debt? I can work hard and forgo eating out and whatever to save up to invest in a new business I want to start. Where's the debt?

----------


## dannno

In our current monetary system, like Zeitgeist says, all new money is created as debt. That is why there is so much debt. In a free market, money is wealth, not debt. If somebody loans out money, the person pays them back, but the money is not debt it represents real wealth. The person is simply in debt to the lender. The person is supposed to take the money and add value to it, for example they can buy an older home in a relatively nice neighborhood, put it some work to fix it up and sell it for a profit. The person who forgoed spending their money right away and instead saved it, and loaned out that money shouldn't lose anything because of it. In fact they get rewarded for saving their money, because instead of taking resources out of the economy earlier, they forgoed doing that, thus resulting in greater supply and lower prices for everyone else.. so everyone else benefits off that person not spending their money right away, and that person who saved benefits equally later.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I don't believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.


I'll no longer be suckered into thinking that the free market wouldn't have failed thousands of times over without state support.  



> Then why did you say savings and investment requires debt? I can work hard and forgo eating out and whatever to save up to invest in a new business I want to start. Where's the debt?


Voluntary participation is also a distortion of social values with money value.  Only if you have opportunity to work hard and save and start a business that might be viable could you do that.  Environmental context trumps ideology, and the market system discourages every successful business from doing anything that would help facilitate an environment where another business could shut you out of one. 



> In our current monetary system, like Zeitgeist says, all new money is created as debt. That is why there is so much debt. In a free market, money is wealth, not debt. If somebody loans out money, the person pays them back, but the money is not debt it represents real wealth. The person is simply in debt to the lender. The person is supposed to take the money and add value to it, for example they can buy an older home in a relatively nice neighborhood, put it some work to fix it up and sell it for a profit. The person who forgoed spending their money right away and instead saved it, and loaned out that money shouldn't lose anything because of it. In fact they get rewarded for saving their money, because instead of taking resources out of the economy earlier, they forgoed doing that, thus resulting in greater supply and lower prices for everyone else.. so everyone else benefits off that person not spending their money right away, and that person who saved benefits equally later.


Precious metals or whatever currencies are competing in this circus of distorted social values only represent real wealth in terms of market value.  Concerns for the environment or healthy social responsibility come second to appeasing the money god.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'll no longer be suckered into thinking that the free market wouldn't have failed thousands of times over without state support.


The computer will provide for us all.  Amen.

----------


## hazek

> Simple access surveys are all that's needed, no divination necessary. How much time each day do how many people need to access a particular helicopter? How sustainable would it be to meet access demand considering resources available?


Thank you for proving my point. Your computer is incapable of figuring out whether to produce a single helicopter in the first place. All it would know is if there are resources available and if people in that moment want it.

Well sir, that system is extremely wasteful: What if at the same time a helicopter is invented, someone else invents a jetpack. Let's say all of earths resources are used up and you only have enough to produce either helicopters or jetpacks. What if people initially answer the surveys that they'd like to have helicopters because they like the idea of this new invention but after they try it, it's too complicated for them to learn to operate and not comfortable enough to travel in and they change their minds? How is this system going to know which to produce if any at all??? How? 

How is it going to know it's not going to waste the single last resources available on something that: 
A) doesn't offer the same value in return of the super scarce resources
B) something you have no guarantee, that tomorrow a new and better technology isn't going to get invented and would be a better use for the super scarce resources
C) people won't change their opinion about once they get the chance to try out

I mean I hope you realize that once you produce a helicopter the resources are wasted. You can't just demolish it and get 100% back.

*Because your computer does not know the future, it cannot ever know these answers.* And it's how every single moneyless system always produces shortages of which food is the most atrocious one.


In a free market when a new product is invented and presented to the market the market through prices instantly shows whether it's worth producing or not. And as soon as the first batch is produced and sold or not, you know right away if you made a profit. If you didn't the product obviously isn't worth the resources and the business stops producing. If there's initial profit the business continues to produce as long as it can maintain a profit. Once it can't anymore it means the supply is greater then the demand and the business stops wasting resources because it knows if it doesn't it will go bankrupt. It is impossible to know these things without prices. Impossible.

p.s.: this type of central planing without money system has been tried numerous times in the last 100 years and it always lead, ALWAYS lead to mass starvation. So I'm not even worried about your ideas because even if you can't comprehend the flaws of your ideas, unless you use violence to implement it, you will never see this system on a global scale. Never.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Thank you for proving my point. Your computer is incapable of figuring out whether to produce a single helicopter in the first place. All it would know is if there are resources available and if people in that moment want it.
> 
> Well sir, that system is extremely wasteful: What if at the same time a helicopter is invented, someone else invents a jetpack. Let's say all of earths resources are used up and you only have enough to produce either helicopters or jetpacks. What if people initially answer the surveys that they'd like to have helicopters because they like the idea of this new invention but after they try it, it's too complicated for them to learn to operate and not comfortable enough to travel in and they change their minds? How is this system going to know which to produce if any at all??? How? 
> 
> How is it going to know it's not going to waste the single last resources available on something that: 
> A) doesn't offer the same value in return of the super scarce resources
> B) something you have no guarantee, that tomorrow a new and better technology isn't going to get invented and would be a better use for the super scarce resources
> C) people won't change their opinion about once they get the chance to try out
> 
> ...


The answers you're looking for come from the wrong perspective.  The questions don't apply.  Profitability means absolutely nothing in terms of supporting a sustainable, socially sound society.  

If you want to see what leads to mass starvation, look no further than the monetary system today and the flaws in terms of placing profitability above all social concerns, sustainability and survivability.

It's no less impossible to take inventory of the earth's resources and distribute them in a sustainable fashion than it is to take inventory of a forest and lake and live off the food, water, and other essentials in a sustainable fashion, which is exactly the way humans lived for thousands of years.  No concept of property, money, or trading necessary at all.

None of the laws of production are altered by adding artificial values upon them based on their profitability in a market economy.  Nature is a dictatorship.  Bankruptcy has no effect upon resources available on the planet.  Increasing or decreasing production in terms of profitability has no fundamental correlation with the available resources or the most efficient use of them to sustain civilization in any kind of stable manner.

Maintaining pricing mechanisms hinders productivity and innovation, distorts social values, and quite simply won't work at all anymore when automation replaces the labor for wages game for good.

----------


## jtstellar

> I'll no longer be suckered into thinking that the free market wouldn't have failed thousands of times over without state support.


suckered?  nobody is forcing you to participate.  you're freely capable of living off an island somewhere with your hippie friends

on the other hand, it is your hipster friends that refuse to answer a simple question such as the non aggression principle.  if you hipsters wish to push crap on us, who is being forced a sucker here really.

and free market has failed a thousand times?  to be mathematically correct you have to do some type of infinite sequence addition because that's how many times it did work.  this is not a hypothetical rant-on either.  mankind has relied on the market to survive for thousand of years, therefore it's a time-continuum that you have to sum up mathematically with infinite sequencing if you wish to calculate how many times it did work.  Furthermore, human beings are still here, so why are you whining.  seriously, what do you do for a living.




> Precious metals or whatever currencies are competing in this circus of distorted social values only represent real wealth in terms of market value.  Concerns for the environment or healthy social responsibility come second to appeasing the money god.


nonsensical, brain-dead, indoctrinated buzz-word rant-on fail.  what if i replace "money" with "medium of exchange".  Ahh.  did a light bulb just go off in your head?  go screw yourself.

----------


## hazek

> The answers you're looking for come from the wrong perspective.  The questions don't apply.  Profitability means absolutely nothing in terms of supporting a sustainable, socially sound society.  
> 
> If you want to see what leads to mass starvation, look no further than the monetary system today and the flaws in terms of placing profitability above all social concerns, sustainability and survivability.
> 
> It's no less impossible to take inventory of the earth's resources and distribute them in a sustainable fashion than it is to take inventory of a forest and lake and live off the food, water, and other essentials in a sustainable fashion, which is exactly the way humans lived for thousands of years.  No concept of property, money, or trading necessary at all.
> 
> None of the laws of production are altered by adding artificial values upon them based on their profitability in a market economy.  Nature is a dictatorship.  Bankruptcy has no effect upon resources available on the planet.  Increasing or decreasing production in terms of profitability has no fundamental correlation with the available resources or the most efficient use of them to sustain civilization in any kind of stable manner.
> 
> Maintaining pricing mechanisms hinders productivity and innovation, distorts social values, and quite simply won't work at all anymore when automation replaces the labor for wages game for good.


So basically you don't have an answer and you persists with your central planing theory because you think it's the right thing to do oblivious to it's wastefulness and if I disagree you'll force me at a barrel of a gun.

Good to know.

p.s.: What we have today doesn't even come close to a truly free market.

----------


## Jim Casey

> suckered?  nobody is forcing you to participate.  you're freely capable of living off an island somewhere with your hippie friends
> 
> on the other hand, it is your hipster friends that refuse to answer a simple question such as the non aggression principle.  if you hipsters wish to push crap on us, who is being forced a sucker here really.
> 
> and free market has failed a thousand times?  to be mathematically correct you have to do some type of infinite sequence addition because that's how many times it did work.  this is not a hypothetical rant-on either.  mankind has relied on the market to survive for thousand of years, therefore it's a time-continuum that you have to sum up mathematically with infinite sequencing if you wish to calculate how many times it did work.  Furthermore, human beings are still here, so why are you whining.  seriously, what do you do for a living.
> 
> 
> 
> nonsensical, brain-dead, indoctrinated buzz-word rant-on fail.  what if i replace "money" with "medium of exchange".  Ahh.  did a light bulb just go off in your head?  go screw yourself.


Saying that "nobody is forcing you to participate" if so obviously skewed.  If the choice I and billions others have is participate or starve to death, we are forced by our own natural need to eat to survive to either participate or die, regardless of the degree that opportunity to participate is made available that would make survival even a possibility.  The free market system is indeed a gun to the head of billions of people for whom it is not profitable to feed. 



> So basically you don't have an answer and you persists with your central planing theory because you think it's the right thing to do oblivious to it's wastefulness and if I disagree you'll force me at a barrel of a gun.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> p.s.: What we have today doesn't even come close to a truly free market.


The black or white comparison of describing any perspective that doesn't value the socially darwinistic gaming of others for profit above any other social value since divine right of financial influence in the free market that must be so determined as self evident as to believe that it is an assault to freedom itself if market forces aren't allowed to take priority to natural law or any social value that is actually necessary for civilization.

----------


## dannno

> the market system discourages every successful business from doing anything that would help facilitate an environment where another business could shut you out of one.


No, the GOVERNMENT discourages every successful business from doing anything that would help facilitate an environment where another business could "shut you out of one."




> Precious metals or whatever currencies are competing in this circus of distorted social values only represent real wealth in terms of market value.


That's not distorted, that's REAL. It helps measure societies' true value it holds for various goods so that they can integrate themselves into the marketplace. Some goods that are made of steel are finished goods, some goods made of steel are raw materials. In the Zeitgeist system you won't know when to use steel as a raw material and when it is more efficient to use an alternative, because you won't be able to compare the value of the end products to the raw material.





> Concerns for the environment or healthy social responsibility come second to appeasing the money god.


Only when concern for private property is not first and foremost. Private property rights is the best way to protect the environment.

----------


## hazek

> The black or white comparison of describing any perspective that doesn't value the socially darwinistic gaming of others for profit above any other social value since divine right of financial influence in the free market that must be so determined as self evident as to believe that it is an assault to freedom itself if market forces aren't allowed to take priority to natural law or any social value that is actually necessary for civilization.


In order words those who don't agree with your social values and what you think the civilization needs are brainwashed?

To summarize:
-you don't have an answer to my single most important question
-those who disagree with you are brainwashed and will be forced to comply

Is that the gist of it?

----------


## silverhandorder

Jim Casey are you familiar with a concept Crusoe economics?

----------


## Wesker1982

> If you want to see what leads to mass starvation, look no further than the monetary system today


[  ] Free Market Monetary System
[x] Central Bank

----------


## Jim Casey

> No, the GOVERNMENT discourages every successful business from doing anything that would help facilitate an environment where another business could "shut you out of one."
> 
> 
> 
> That's not distorted, that's REAL. It helps measure societies' true value it holds for various goods so that they can integrate themselves into the marketplace. Some goods that are made of steel are finished goods, some goods made of steel are raw materials. In the Zeitgeist system you won't know when to use steel as a raw material and when it is more efficient to use an alternative, because you won't be able to compare the value of the end products to the raw material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when concern for private property is not first and foremost. Private property rights is the best way to protect the environment.


Market values are only real insofar as they pertain to the market system.  They have no real basis whatsoever on the fundamental dictates of the laws of nature and the best means of sustaining an environment where healthy social values that are required for civilization to exist can flourish.



> In order words those who don't agree with your social values and what you think the civilization needs are brainwashed?
> 
> To summarize:
> -you don't have an answer to my single most important question
> -those who disagree with you are brainwashed and will be forced to comply
> 
> Is that the gist of it?


Human beings have scientifically proven needs to survive as dictated by nature.  Any kind of brainwashing that exists in regards to economics results from the idea that the market itself trumps nature in regards to social values of cooperation within society to survive.  Regardless of the level of agreement or disagreement to natural law, compliance with meeting the needs of survival is scientifically proven.



> Jim Casey are you familiar with a concept Crusoe economics?


As with any new system of economic thought, the major precepts of the invisible hand of the market as some kind of divine influence and laborers as some expendable race that have been accepted as self-evident since Adam Smith developed economic theory likely haven't been refuted by any economist with academic credentials.

----------


## Jim Casey

> [  ] Free Market Monetary System
> [x] Central Bank


The existence of a central bank has no relevance to the fact that billions will starve if it is not profitable to feed them when market economics is adhered to.

----------


## dannno

> Market values are only real insofar as they pertain to the market system.  They have no real basis whatsoever on the fundamental dictates of the laws of nature and the best means of sustaining an environment where healthy social values that are required for civilization to exist can flourish.


That's not true either, market values ARE real and DO account for sustainability and abundance. This has all been explained hundreds of times in this thread. You are the one who wants to assign arbitrary values to things in some computer system to calculate some concocted demand. And I don't mean the demand by individuals for goods, I mean their demand for the raw materials, and how to best stratify those raw materials throughout various goods. Zeitgeist system can't do it.

----------


## dannno

> The existence of a central bank has no relevance to the fact that billions will starve if it is not profitable to feed them when market economics is adhered to.


Of COURSE it is $#@!ing relevant, the central bank IS CONSTANTLY stealing from poor people and giving to rich people!! What a ridiculous notion.

----------


## Jim Casey

> That's not true either, market values ARE real and DO account for sustainability and abundance. This has all been explained hundreds of times in this thread. You are the one who wants to assign arbitrary values to things in some computer system to calculate some concocted demand.


Market values only account for profitability.  If it is more profitable to sell everybody pet rocks and let half the world starve, then sustainability and abundance within the market system must be refuted as absurd.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Of COURSE it is $#@!ing relevant, the central bank IS CONSTANTLY stealing from poor people and giving to rich people!! What a ridiculous notion.


If not the central bank, then other market forces will be the gun to the head of the starving millions.  Still not relevant.

----------


## hazek

> Human beings have scientifically proven needs to survive as dictated by nature.  Any kind of brainwashing that exists in regards to economics results from the idea that the market itself trumps nature in regards to social values of cooperation within society to survive.  Regardless of the level of agreement or disagreement to natural law, compliance with meeting the needs of survival is scientifically proven.


Thank so much for confirming. I was right, you are just another religious nut who believes in Marxism and want's to use force against anyone who disagrees.

Well good luck with that cause I'm out of this thread.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Thank so much for confirming. I was right, you are just another religious nut who believes in Marxism and want's to use force against anyone who disagrees.
> 
> Well good luck with that cause I'm out of this thread.


Nature itself is the force that matters, regardless of political or market philosophy.

----------


## dannno

How can you claim to know ANYTHING about free market economics??





> Market values only account for profitability.


No, they also account for whether a resource is abundant or rare.






> If it is more profitable to sell everybody pet rocks and let half the world starve, then sustainability and abundance within the market system must be refuted as absurd.


Dude, seriously.. are you trolling or are you being for real? If half the world was starving, who the $#@! is going to voluntarily buy a pet rock? How would they then be profitable to sell? Do you think people just buy stuff because it is for sale, and don't consider the cost? Why don't you try going back to the cave man days and try and sell a starving person a $#@!ing pet rock and see how profitable it is?

----------


## silverhandorder

> As with any new system of economic thought, the major precepts of the invisible hand of the market as some kind of divine influence and laborers as some expendable race that have been accepted as self-evident since Adam Smith developed economic theory likely haven't been refuted by any economist with academic credentials.


I don't understand what you are saying. Are you familiar with the concept or not?

----------


## Jim Casey

> How can you claim to know ANYTHING about free market economics??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they also account for whether a resource is abundant or rare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The economic stratification that naturally results in a market system means people will buy pet rocks and the hell with the other half of the world that is starving.  It's not as profitable to repeat the message of starving millions as it is to repeat the pet rock marketing message.  In a market driven economy, manufactured desires that result from distorted social values trump efforts at social responsibility.  The more deeply instilled market values are, the more socially distorted the society.

----------


## silverhandorder

> The existence of a central bank has no relevance to the fact that billions will starve if it is not profitable to feed them when market economics is adhered to.


Actually this is false. Only government created barriers can lower worker productivity bellow what would feed them.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Dude, seriously.. are you trolling or are you being for real?


After this:




> If not the central bank, then other market forces will be the gun to the head of the starving millions.  Still not relevant.


It should be obivious.

Where is the evidence for your assertion? Can you give me an example in history where market forces have caused famine? All of the famines I can think of off the top of my head where caused by centrally planned economies or natural disasters.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I don't understand what you are saying. Are you familiar with the concept or not?


Economic sentiments based on a fictional novel.  I'm familiar. 



> Actually this is false. Only government created barriers can lower worker productivity bellow what would feed them.


Worker productivity has nothing to do with whether or not the population gets fed.  If it's not profitable to employ labor, starvation ensues in a market economy unless social values trump Adam Smith's socially darwinistic notion that the divine invisible hand of the market has snuffed the lives of the expendable race of laborers. 



> After this:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obivious.
> 
> Where is the evidence for your assertion? Can you give me an example in history where market forces have caused famine? All of the famines I can think of off the top of my head where caused by centrally planned economies or natural disasters.


Throughout history, nature has always dictated terms of survival and planning has taken place according to understanding of those terms at the given time.  How this relates to market values and state interference depends entirely upon social values.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Economic sentiments based on a fictional novel.  I'm familiar. 
> 
> Worker productivity has nothing to do with whether or not the population gets fed.  If it's not profitable to employ labor, starvation ensues in a market economy unless social values trump Adam Smith's socially darwinistic notion that the divine invisible hand of the market has snuffed the lives of the expendable race of laborers.


First of all it seems that you are not familiar with the concept at all. Has nothing to do with sentiments as you say. It is a methodology that looks to strip down a problem to it's basic components without any abstractions about. If you disagree please show me how Crusoe Economics represents a sentiment.

Secondly if a worker is productive this means he can feed himself. If he is productive enough to feed himself he can exchange that labor with anyone in economy looking for anyone productive. The only way what you say would be true is if the economy would no longer require productivity. That is impossible since we always require something we want and as such the economy will always demand greater amount of productivity. What I said now is absent any monetary language so you can not dismiss it by saying it is a product of antiquated thinking based on money.

----------


## Jim Casey

> First of all it seems that you are not familiar with the concept at all. Has nothing to do with sentiments as you say. It is a methodology that looks to strip down a problem to it's basic components without any abstractions about. If you disagree please show me how Crusoe Economics represents a sentiment.
> 
> Secondly if a worker is productive this means he can feed himself. If he is productive enough to feed himself he can exchange that labor with anyone in economy looking for anyone productive. The only way what you say would be true is if the economy would no longer require productivity. That is impossible since we always require something we want and as such the economy will always demand greater amount of productivity. What I said now is absent any monetary language so you can not dismiss it by saying it is a product of antiquated thinking based on money.


Stripping things down a bit here, there is only so much demand for so much productive labor.  If market economics trump social responsibility, every time demand for labor drops the lives of productive workers are expendable, since labor is merely a commodity without human value outside of market values.

----------


## silverhandorder

Alright why are you ignoring my question about Crusoe economics?

Why would anyone not want someone productive? Let's say I offer to work for you and bring in income of 100$ all that I require is for you to give me back enough to feed my self which let's assume is 99$. Why would you not want an extra dollar for free when all is said and done? It is impossible for demand for labor to drop. There must be another factor that involves starving workers.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Worker productivity has nothing to do with whether or not the population gets fed.


If nothing is produced then nothing can be consumed.  If no one is being productive growing, harvesting, preparing, and delivering food, then no one can eat.  

That is, as things are _now_ no one can eat.  But you are proposing major _change_. Perhaps you are proposing that we go back to live in the Garden of Eden.  That might work.  What are your plans on snake-mitigation policy this time around?

----------


## __27__

> Jim Casey are you familiar with a concept Crusoe economics?


I posted Murrays entire section on Crusoe from Ethics back many pages.  No response from Jim.

----------


## Wesker1982

Very good imo

----------


## Jim Casey

> Alright why are you ignoring my question about Crusoe economics?
> 
> Why would anyone not want someone productive? Let's say I offer to work for you and bring in income of 100$ all that I require is for you to give me back enough to feed my self which let's assume is 99$. Why would you not want an extra dollar for free when all is said and done? It is impossible for demand for labor to drop. There must be another factor that involves starving workers.


The offer of you to work for me and bring me income only exists in the environment of context.  Nature dictates that only so much production can be sustained in an environment.  The market values profitability over sustainability regardless of productivity and efficiency. 



> If nothing is produced then nothing can be consumed.  If no one is being productive growing, harvesting, preparing, and delivering food, then no one can eat.  
> 
> That is, as things are _now_ no one can eat.  But you are proposing major _change_. Perhaps you are proposing that we go back to live in the Garden of Eden.  That might work.  What are your plans on snake-mitigation policy this time around?


A basic awareness of the resources on the planet and the absolute necessity to survive within those means must be universally acknowledged rather than obscured for the sake of profitability. 



> I posted Murrays entire section on Crusoe from Ethics back many pages.  No response from Jim.


The freedom to engage in production and distribution with natural laws exist beyond self-interest, and the moment the concept of property and market economics enters the equation the social distortions that result inevitably cause a detachment from what is sustainable.  The fruits of your labor are nothing more the the fruits of the earth.

----------


## silverhandorder

> The offer of you to work for me and bring me income only exists in the environment of context.  Nature dictates that only so much production can be sustained in an environment.  The market values profitability over sustainability regardless of productivity and efficiency.


Why do you continue to ignore some of my questions?

If the environment does not sustain production it does not sustain enough individuals. In which case which ever system you have you will have some individuals without food or means to survive.

However that is not a system we live in now or are likely to live in. So I do not see it as a core criticism of anything specific and you fail to give evidence to how it is even relevant since your system will experience the same problems.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener  
> If nothing is produced then nothing can be consumed. If no one is being productive growing, harvesting, preparing, and delivering food, then no one can eat. 
> 
> That is, as things are now no one can eat. But you are proposing major change. Perhaps you are proposing that we go back to live in the Garden of Eden. That might work. What are your plans on snake-mitigation policy this time around?
> 			
> 		
> 
> A basic awareness of the resources on the planet and the absolute necessity to survive within those means must be universally acknowledged rather than obscured for the sake of profitability.


 You quote my post and then write something below it, as if it were replying to me, but it baffles me as to how your words and my words are related.  You said: worker productivity is irrelevant to people getting fed.  I said: no, it's actually of primal, supreme, number one relevance.  You said: to the contrary, we should all join hands and be aware and acknowledgefull.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Why do you continue to ignore some of my questions?
> 
> If the environment does not sustain production it does not sustain enough individuals. In which case which ever system you have you will have some individuals without food or means to survive.
> 
> However that is not a system we live in now or are likely to live in. So I do not see it as a core criticism of anything specific and you fail to give evidence to how it is even relevant since your system will experience the same problems.


The entire social world is infected with a market economy.  The means of production and distribution is hindered by the market because what is profitable trumps what is socially responsible.  Sustainability in regards to the actual resources of the environment can never be realized so long as gaming for profit dominates social policy. 



> You quote my post and then write something below it, as if it were replying to me, but it baffles me as to how your words and my words are related.  You said: worker productivity is irrelevant to people getting fed.  I said: no, it's actually of primal, supreme, number one relevance.  You said: to the contrary, we should all join hands and be aware and acknowledgefull.


You could have the most productive pet rock marketers in the world making tons of profit, but it won't put food in the mouths of those who lack the purchasing power to acquire basic necessities in the market system.

----------


## silverhandorder

> The entire social world is infected with a market economy.  The means of production and distribution is hindered by the market because what is profitable trumps what is socially responsible.  Sustainability in regards to the actual resources of the environment can never be realized so long as gaming for profit dominates social policy.


You are ignoring everything I am saying why would anyone want to continue to hold discussion with you? Who do you think you are convincing when you are just spouting nonsense that is political in nature and has nothing to do with economics.

Stating that people that cant feed them selves should be fed is a statement that does not effect economics one bit.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You are ignoring everything I am saying why would anyone want to continue to hold discussion with you? Who do you think you are convincing when you are just spouting nonsense that is political in nature and has nothing to do with economics.
> 
> Stating that people that cant feed them selves should be fed is a statement that does not effect economics one bit.


The point is to raise awareness of the flaws of the monetary market system and the social distortions it creates.  TZM is the cure for what ails us.

----------


## silverhandorder

Awareness is not enough if you are giving bad rep to tzm you are actually hurting tzm cause. So far in this thread you demonstrated no aptitude in either defending tzm or actually understanding market economy for what it is.

----------


## __27__

> The point is to raise awareness of the flaws of the monetary market system and the social distortions it creates.  TZM is the cure for what ails us.


Then you should try addressing points.  Dodging deflecting and repititious rhetoric only serves to show others how little you understand.  There are good free thinkers in TZM and you do them a monumental disservice everytime you open your mouth purporting to represent them.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Awareness is not enough if you are giving bad rep to tzm you are actually hurting tzm cause. So far in this thread you demonstrated no aptitude in either defending tzm or actually understanding market economy for what it is.


The market economy is a game.  I get the game.  Abstractions assessed about the rules are only applicable in environment context. 



> Then you should try addressing points.  Dodging deflecting and repititious rhetoric only serves to show others how little you understand.  There are good free thinkers in TZM and you do them a monumental disservice everytime you open your mouth purporting to represent them.


A good as some folks may be, I don't serve them.  Nature's dictatorship is what we all must ultimately serve.

----------


## silverhandorder

You are welcome to spout irrelevant bs. As long as I called you out on it my concience is clear. I fear for tzm friends who will have to deal with the consequences of your actions once you create bad rep with the people who run into tzm by listening to you.

----------


## purplechoe

> Very good imo


fantastic response...

----------


## Jim Casey

> You are welcome to spout irrelevant bs. As long as I called you out on it my concience is clear. I fear for tzm friends who will have to deal with the consequences of your actions once you create bad rep with the people who run into tzm by listening to you.


No need to fear.  If TZM is the immune system of the social world, we'll all be rid of the anxieties created by unhealthy values imposed upon us in the market system.

The relevant information is what I'm focused on, not particular notions that aren't applicable outside the context of gaming one another and the resources of the planet for profit.

After all, this is a global movement.  It's not outside the realm of possibility that TZM might attract endorsements from folks even more notorious than me before the glorious day when the RBE is established worldwide.




Watch it again.  Come on, you know you want to.

----------


## jtstellar

this guy sounds more like a troll by every post
koo~koo~

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You could have the most productive pet rock marketers in the world making tons of profit, but it won't put food in the mouths of those who lack the purchasing power to acquire basic necessities in the market system.


You said productivity was irrelevant.  Not that _some_ productivity was irrelevant to _some_ aspects of life.  That, I would have agreed with.  Pet rock production is indeed irrelevant to eating.  Sink production is irrelevant to iPod use.  Strawberry harvesting provides no one with shelter from the cold winter blast.  Fine.  Agreement all around.

So do you now take back your statement that productivity is irrelevant to whether humans eat?  Do you now concede that "Yes, Helmuth, you're right.  Without productivity everyone would starve"?

----------


## Jim Casey

> You said productivity was irrelevant.  Not that _some_ productivity was irrelevant to _some_ aspects of life.  That, I would have agreed with.  Pet rock production is indeed irrelevant to eating.  Sink production is irrelevant to iPod use.  Strawberry harvesting provides no one with shelter from the cold winter blast.  Fine.  Agreement all around.
> 
> So do you now take back your statement that productivity is irrelevant to whether humans eat?  Do you now concede that "Yes, Helmuth, you're right.  Without productivity everyone would starve"?


Productivity must be sustainable to avoid the threat of starvation.  Soil depletion and deforestation are only considerations in regards to profitability in the market system.

----------


## Sentient Void

I dedicate this to all those who believe in the Venus Project!

----------


## jtstellar

> I dedicate this to all those who believe in the Venus Project!


roflmao

----------


## Sentient Void

I don't normally engage in such things. But when someone is clearly a troll, they deserve a troll response in return.

Even though that's how I seriously feel on the inside about it all anyways.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Productivity must be sustainable to avoid the threat of starvation.  Soil depletion and deforestation are only considerations in regards to profitability in the market system.


Bulshytt: (1) In Fluccish of the late Praxic Age and early Reconstitution, a derogatory term for false speech in general, esp. knowing and deliberate falsehood or obfuscation. (2) *In Orth, a more technical and clinical term denoting speech (typically but not necessarily commercial or political) that employs euphemism, convenient vagueness, numbing repetition, and other such rhetorical subterfuges to create the impression that something has been said.* (3) According to the Knights of Saunt Halikaarn, a radical order of the 2nd Millennium A.R., all speech and writings of the ancient Sphenics; the Mystagogues of the Old Mathic Age; Praxic Age commercial and political institutions; and, since the Reconstitution, anyone they deemed to have been infected by Procian thinking. Their frequent and loud use of this word to interrupt lectures, dialogs, private conversations, etc., exacerbated the divide between Procian and Halikaarnian orders that characterized the mathic world in the years leading up to the Third Sack. Shortly before the Third Sack, all of the Knights of Saunt Halikaarn were Thrown Back, so little more is known about them (their frequent appearance in Sæcular entertainments results from confusion between them and the Incanters). 
Usage note: In the mathic world, if the word is suddenly shouted out in a chalk hall or refectory it brings to mind the events associated with sense (3) and is therefore to be avoided. Spoken in a moderate tone of voice, it takes on sense (2), which long ago lost any vulgar connotations it may once have had. In the Sæculum it is easily confused with sense (1) and deemed a vulgarity or even an obscenity. It is inherent in the mentality of extramuros bulshytt-talkers that they are more prone than anyone else to taking offense (or pretending to) when their bulshytt is pointed out to them. This places the mathic observer in a nearly impossible position. One is forced either to use this “offensive” word and be deemed a disagreeable person and as such excluded from polite discourse, or to say the same thing in a different way, which means becoming a purveyor of bulshytt oneself and thereby lending strength to what one is trying to attack. The latter quality probably explains the uncanny stability and resiliency of bulshytt. Resolving this dilemma is beyond the scope of this Dictionary and is probably best left to hierarchs who make it their business to interact with the Sæculum.
— the dictionary, 4th edition, A.R. 3000

----------


## __27__

> Productivity must be sustainable to avoid the threat of starvation.  Soil depletion and deforestation are only considerations in regards to profitability in the market system.


Jim,

If I own 100 acres of trees and my aim is to make a profit from them, do I cut them all down at once?  Not if I have rational faculties.  Clearcutting a forest once provides me with one payckeck.  Once.  Ah, but if I simply use that wonderful hard science of math (and calculation) I can determine the amount of time needed to reforest my land to ensure that I maintain a steady rotation of partial cutting, replanting, growth and cutting again in a planned fashion.  Where once I had a paycheck, now I have a sustainable source of income.  Ownership provides the incentive to protect resources, to become sustainable.  Profit itself, more specifically the promise of future profit, is what drives sustainability.  

Where ownership is lacking, say where governments have decided they own land, there is no longer the incentive of future profits to protect.  Thus as government provides land leases on forests, they are predictably clear-cut.  There is no incentive for the harvester to do anything other when he is not the owner of the land.  He is faced with the prospect of cutting a small chunk of trees for X (profit), or cutting them all for 5X (profit times 5).  He is never given the opportunity to realize ownership and the potential of creating a sustainable and protected private service for X^Y (sustainable future profit).



Not sure why I'm bothering anymore, but someone has to keep this thing rolling, right?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jim,
> 
> If I own 100 acres of trees and my aim is to make a profit from them, do I cut them all down at once?  Not if I have rational faculties.  Clearcutting a forest once provides me with one payckeck.  Once.  Ah, but if I simply use that wonderful hard science of math (and calculation) I can determine the amount of time needed to reforest my land to ensure that I maintain a steady rotation of partial cutting, replanting, growth and cutting again in a planned fashion.  Where once I had a paycheck, now I have a sustainable source of income.  Ownership provides the incentive to protect resources, to become sustainable.  Profit itself, more specifically the promise of future profit, is what drives sustainability.  
> 
> Where ownership is lacking, say where governments have decided they own land, there is no longer the incentive of future profits to protect.  Thus as government provides land leases on forests, they are predictably clear-cut.  There is no incentive for the harvester to do anything other when he is not the owner of the land.  He is faced with the prospect of cutting a small chunk of trees for X (profit), or cutting them all for 5X (profit times 5).  He is never given the opportunity to realize ownership and the potential of creating a sustainable and protected private service for X^Y (sustainable future profit).
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why I'm bothering anymore, but someone has to keep this thing rolling, right?


Protective rotation is discouraged by profitability.   Maximize profitability by cutting all the trees and buying more land with trees and cutting them all down and once you've gotten as much profit as you can from cutting trees on available land you move the profit to another market.  The market encourages gaming the land for the greatest financial influence in the market regardless of sustainability.

----------


## dannno

> Protective rotation is discouraged by profitability.   Maximize profitability by cutting all the trees and buying more land with trees and cutting them all down and once you've gotten as much profit as you can from cutting trees on available land you move the profit to another market.  The market encourages gaming the land for the greatest financial influence in the market regardless of sustainability.


You're the best person at ignoring entire posts in the world.

Everything you said is argued in detail the post you quoted, and you refuted 0% of it.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You're the best person at ignoring entire posts in the world.
> 
> Everything you said is argued in detail the post you quoted, and you refuted 0% of it.


I refuted 100% of it.  Folks can describe the possibility of sustainability within the market system all they want, but sustainability never maximizes profits and is thus discouraged by the market system.  Nobody willingly cuts their profits by 80% annually because if they do they'll have a smaller share of the market and thus less influence in the market.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I dedicate this to all those who believe in the Venus Project!


Thread winner!

----------


## __27__

> I refuted 100% of it.  Folks can describe the possibility of sustainability within the market system all they want, but sustainability never maximizes profits and is thus discouraged by the market system.  Nobody willingly cuts their profits by 80% annually because if they do they'll have a smaller share of the market and thus less influence in the market.


/sigh

100% of one years profit is 100%.

20% of one hundred years profit is 2000% profit.

I'm not a mathematician, but I have a passable grasp of the basic fundamentals of the science.  From what I've been taught, 2000% is greater than 100%.

----------


## Jim Casey

> /sigh
> 
> 100% of one years profit is 100%.
> 
> 20% of one hundred years profit is 2000% profit.
> 
> I'm not a mathematician, but I have a passable grasp of the basic fundamentals of the science.  From what I've been taught, 2000% is greater than 100%.


100% profit the first year and another 200 acres purchased with the profits means exponential profit growth in the shortest amount of time possible.  The market system does not encourage slow, long-term sustainable growth.  It encourages getting as much as you can get while the getting is good or risk being driven out of the market by competitors.



> I dedicate this to all those who believe in the Venus Project!


This song is my dedication.




To a man whose iconoclastic world view is absolutely fascinating.

----------


## dannno

There is some more discussion on the topic in this interview:

----------


## hugolp

I am still curious about how the Venus Project and the Computer Based Economy would avoid the formation of factions to influence the programming of The Computer to get more benefits.

----------


## silverhandorder

> 100% profit the first year and another 200 acres purchased with the profits means exponential profit growth in the shortest amount of time possible.  The market system does not encourage slow, long-term sustainable growth.  It encourages getting as much as you can get while the getting is good or risk being driven out of the market by competitors.


Such simple grasp of economics. Land does not cost cheap. If you clear cut all 100 acres that will not result in you buying another 100 acres with the profits you have. How can you criticize when you know not what you criticize?

----------


## __27__

> Such simple grasp of economics. Land does not cost cheap. If you clear cut all 100 acres that will not result in you buying another 100 acres with the profits you have. How can you criticize when you know not what you criticize?


Pfft...they just give out 100 acres per year to anyone who wants it.  And by the by, if that WERE even the case, again your yearly profit would still only be 100% each year, while if you planned your cutting strategically with each new 100 acres you'd be exponentially GROWING your profit.  If each field yielded 20% per year (using Jim's figures) after year 5 you'd be making the same 100% per year.  Year six you would be making 20% MORE profit, year 7 40% more, and so on.

I don't even know why we respond anymore.

----------


## dannno

> 100% profit the first year and another 200 acres purchased with the profits means exponential profit growth in the shortest amount of time possible.  The market system does not encourage slow, long-term sustainable growth.  It encourages getting as much as you can get while the getting is good or risk being driven out of the market by competitors.


So you would rather take $100 now than $20/year forever? (And I'm talking about a 'secret' non-inflationary dollar at that!!)

Are you aware that if you have a business that generates 20% profit on the year for the investment would be able to get a larger free market loan (money that doesn't come out of nowhere) that is significantly larger than the extra 80% in profits that could be made by chopping down the entire forest?

That means that they would simply expand to a larger area, and only cut down a sustainable amount in the larger area, instead of clear cutting each year until that larger area is all cut.

The free market is amazing when you understand how it reacts in a non-coercive environment.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Pfft...they just give out 100 acres per year to anyone who wants it.  And by the by, if that WERE even the case, again your yearly profit would still only be 100% each year, while if you planned your cutting strategically with each new 100 acres you'd be exponentially GROWING your profit.  If each field yielded 20% per year (using Jim's figures) after year 5 you'd be making the same 100% per year.  Year six you would be making 20% MORE profit, year 7 40% more, and so on.
> 
> I don't even know why we respond anymore.


For the lulz?

I think we made a mistake not calling him troll early on. Now might as well turn this around and show how silly he is. This is a ton of educational stuff in the thread. At least refutations to common fallacies.

----------


## __27__

http://moekoolaid.ytmnd.com/

----------


## JoshLowry

If it's a Stef video then it should probably be posted in the Philosophy subforum.  No?

----------


## __27__

> If it's a Stef video then it should probably be posted in the Philosophy subforum.  No?


Of course!  Because if it were a constitutional philosophy video or even a TZM philosophy video it'd be fine in GP, but not those crazy anarchists!!

----------


## dannno

> If it's a Stef video then it should probably be posted in the Philosophy subforum.  No?


Page 72??

----------


## dannno

> There is some more discussion on the topic in this interview:


Bump

----------


## Wesker1982

> If it's a Stef video then it should probably be posted in the Philosophy subforum.  No?


No imo because:




> This is a ton of educational stuff in the thread. At least refutations to common fallacies.

----------


## Jim Casey

> So you would rather take $100 now than $20/year forever? (And I'm talking about a 'secret' non-inflationary dollar at that!!)
> 
> Are you aware that if you have a business that generates 20% profit on the year for the investment would be able to get a larger free market loan (money that doesn't come out of nowhere) that is significantly larger than the extra 80% in profits that could be made by chopping down the entire forest?
> 
> That means that they would simply expand to a larger area, and only cut down a sustainable amount in the larger area, instead of clear cutting each year until that larger area is all cut.
> 
> The free market is amazing when you understand how it reacts in a non-coercive environment.


The illusion of freedom in any market system is amazingly obvious.  Folks are coerced by their very survival to engage in trade and business.  The economic stratification and distortion of social values makes it very easy for those at the top to realize that in a market economy, coercion can and will be bought with or without state interference.



> Such simple grasp of economics. Land does not cost cheap. If you clear cut all 100 acres that will not result in you buying another 100 acres with the profits you have. How can you criticize when you know not what you criticize?


The faster the resource is exhausted, the scarcer it becomes and the more profit there is to be had.  Regardless of how much more land you could purchase with the profits, exponential profit growth is encouraged over sustainable resource management in the market system.

----------


## dannno

Why the hell are you changing the topic from an argument that logically proves owning private land produces the most sustainable possible use of resources into something completely different?? 

John Stossel just had an episode on last night about a fishing area in Newfoundland that produced excess fish for fishermen for centuries, that worked under private ownership which maintained quotas for the fishermen. It was working great until the government came in, told the fishermen they wanted to increase the quotas and buy some of the fishing boats to make it 'more sustainable'. Well guess what? Decades later and the place is overfished. There are real world examples all around us about us being right and central planning being WRONG, yet all you can do is spout off theoretical central planning garbage that doesn't have any basis in reality.





> The illusion of freedom in any market system is amazingly obvious.  Folks are coerced by their very survival to engage in trade and business.


You need to take a $#@!ing reality pill already. You can go and survive in the woods or the jungle with a small tribe, protecting yourself from animals, finding or growing small amounts of food, etc... NOBODY is coercing you into participating in any market, and if they are, then it isn't a free market and they are wrong. You have the right to defend yourself and your property, whether you be a tribe defending your hunting ground, grazing are, farm or whatever it may be.

OORRR you can use tools and various technology and work with other people (or your "tribe") to produce more goods or services.. in fact an excess of goods and services that you are good at producing in trade for others' excesses in goods and services that they are good and producing, which you don't produce enough of. As long as you don't use force or coercion against others when trading, and as long as they don't, then everything is gravy. You will benefit, the other people trading with you will benefit, all the while you ignore these benefits in trading and talk $#@! on the word "profit" without ever logically explaining why it is such a bad thing.






> The economic stratification and distortion of social values makes it very easy for those at the top to realize that in a market economy, coercion can and will be bought with or without state interference.
> 
> The faster the resource is exhausted, the scarcer it becomes and the more profit there is to be had.  Regardless of how much more land you could purchase with the profits, exponential profit growth is encouraged over sustainable resource management in the market system.


We've already gone over how historically a real free market with protection of private property is better at sustaining resources than a centrally planned market. In fact, it is the most efficient way to protect those resources. Instead of saying I'm wrong, why don't you find an example of the free market inefficiently sustaining resources for the purpose of increasing profits? Because you can't actually find one, that's why.

Coercion coming from the state is MUCH different than coercion coming from a mafia. People accept the state because they are scared of the mafia.. the problem is the state is just a version of the mafia times a million.. People don't accept mafias, they only work with them in the short term if they are scared, but groups of people will try to get rid of them. Keep in mind the most successful mafias have sprung up and funded themselves via criminal enterprises, whether it be black markets or the banking system. Both of those are upheld by government. Show me a mafia that has had ANY degree of longterm success which has sprung up without being funded by a criminal banking system and without being funded by a black market (created by govt.)

----------


## Jim Casey

> Why the hell are you changing the topic from an argument that logically proves owning private land produces the most sustainable possible use of resources into something completely different??


Population has changed the game.  Private land ownership is no longer sustainable.  The difference between private ownership and universal heritage must be distinguished.



> John Stossel just had an episode on last night about a fishing area in Newfoundland that produced excess fish for fishermen for centuries, that worked under private ownership which maintained quotas for the fishermen. It was working great until the government came in, told the fishermen they wanted to increase the quotas and buy some of the fishing boats to make it 'more sustainable'. Well guess what? Decades later and the place is overfished. There are real world examples all around us about us being right and central planning being WRONG, yet all you can do is spout off theoretical central planning garbage that doesn't have any basis in reality.


The quotas for fishermen only applied to folks that had the opportunity to fish, it is an example of the socially darwinistic nature of the market system and it's coercive influence on those with less financial influence that inspires state interference.  The private fishing land and the fishermen allowed access to that land could rightfully be described as a mafia.



> You need to take a $#@!ing reality pill already. You can go and survive in the woods or the jungle with a small tribe, protecting yourself from animals, finding or growing small amounts of food, etc... NOBODY is coercing you into participating in any market, and if they are, then it isn't a free market and they are wrong. You have the right to defend yourself and your property, whether you be a tribe defending your hunting ground, grazing are, farm or whatever it may be.


Hiding in communes is not the answer.  The entire world is infected with a market system, and any such communes are targets for invasion.  The necessity of sustainable global resource management is the solution that cannot be ignored much longer.



> OORRR you can use tools and various technology and work with other people (or your "tribe") to produce more goods or services.. in fact an excess of goods and services that you are good at producing in trade for others' excesses in goods and services that they are good and producing, which you don't produce enough of. As long as you don't use force or coercion against others when trading, and as long as they don't, then everything is gravy. You will benefit, the other people trading with you will benefit, all the while you ignore these benefits in trading and talk $#@! on the word "profit" without ever logically explaining why it is such a bad thing.


The concept of voluntary trade of excessive production will be rendered obsolete and replaced as knowledge grows of the most valid methods of production and distribution as data determines is sustainable within the elegantly designed system.



> We've already gone over how historically a real free market with protection of private property is better at sustaining resources than a centrally planned market. In fact, it is the most efficient way to protect those resources. Instead of saying I'm wrong, why don't you find an example of the free market inefficiently sustaining resources for the purpose of increasing profits? Because you can't actually find one, that's why.


The entire history of resource depletion in this very country is a prime example of the failure of markets and property rights to sustain the growing population.  The expansion of the state has been necessary to perpetuate the market system itself.



> Coercion coming from the state is MUCH different than coercion coming from a mafia. People accept the state because they are scared of the mafia.. the problem is the state is just a version of the mafia times a million.. People don't accept mafias, they only work with them in the short term if they are scared, but groups of people will try to get rid of them. Keep in mind the most successful mafias have sprung up and funded themselves via criminal enterprises, whether it be black markets or the banking system. Both of those are upheld by government. Show me a mafia that has had ANY degree of longterm success which has sprung up without being funded by a criminal banking system and without being funded by a black market (created by govt.)


All problems defined as mafias, states, criminal enterprises, central banking systems, black markets ect. are symptoms of the market system itself.  The more the society at large places market values above social responsibility, the worse these problems become.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

danno, Jim Casey is trolling.  My advice-

----------


## __27__

Awwww.....hes sooooo cute though!

----------


## ClayTrainor



----------


## mediahasyou

//

----------


## dannno



----------


## Sentient Void

Why was ___27___ banned?

----------


## dannno

> Why was ___27___ banned?


He was temp banned for insulting another member, then permabanned after admin review because of a statement he made in a GOA thread that on it's surface appeared to be against liberty activism. He basically supported the notion that if liberty ever comes in this country, it will be despite the "liberty movement", but I believe he meant the Glenn Beck/neocon/tea party "liberty movement" as that made most sense in context. Apparently _27_ is actively involved in liberty activism through his local YAL chapter. I have already sent Josh a PM on the subject, hopefully it will go back to a temp ban.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Why was ___27___ banned?


God $#@!ing dammit!  27 was banned?!!?!?!

----------


## Sentient Void

> He was temp banned for insulting another member, then permabanned after admin review because of a statement he made in a GOA thread that on it's surface appeared to be against liberty activism. He basically supported the notion that if liberty ever comes in this country, it will be despite the "liberty movement", but I believe he meant the Glenn Beck/neocon/tea party "liberty movement" as that made most sense in context. Apparently _27_ is actively involved in liberty activism through his local YAL chapter. I have already sent Josh a PM on the subject, hopefully it will go back to a temp ban.


This is a stupid reason to ban someone outright, IMO. If he did insult a member, a temp ban *after* a PM warning (if he didn't acknowledge/follow the warning) with a request for him to apologize I'd think would have been sufficient.

Pretty ridiculous. It took a *lot* more to ban people in the past who should have been banned much quicker. ___27___ is a great contributor to liberty activism and to this forum.

----------


## Jim Casey

I decided to become a part of the "Why I Advocate The Zeitgeist Movement" video campaign.  It's a pretty cool idea for promoting the philosophy.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

Jim, no offense man, but I think its rather evident people here don't care for The Venus Project/The Zeitgeist Movement. As Stef said, you're free to go your way, we're free to go ours. Good luck with your city, but leave the rest of us in peace.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jim, no offense man, but I think its rather evident people here don't care for The Venus Project/The Zeitgeist Movement. As Stef said, you're free to go your way, we're free to go ours. Good luck with your city, but leave the rest of us in peace.


The commitment folks have to their current perspective could be better evaluated were there a "Why I Advocate Libertarianism" video campaign.  There is a "Why You Are A Libertarian" thread...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-a-Libertarian

...Yet I don't see much original content there that really communicates the supposedly evident commitment.  Most of the supposed commitment is a result of viewing libertarianism as an supposed alternative to what folks are against rather than what libertarianism really offers.

----------


## Wesker1982

I don't understand what your point is. You are basing your conclusion on the level of commitment of libertarians by some random thread on the RPF?




> Most of the supposed commitment is a result of viewing libertarianism as an supposed alternative to what folks are against rather than what libertarianism really offers.


Ok, instead of saying I am against violence, I will say I am _for_ the non-initiation of aggression. What does it matter?




> I don't see much original content there that really communicates the supposedly evident commitment.


What supposed commitment are you talking about?

----------


## dannno

> Most of the supposed commitment is a result of viewing libertarianism as an supposed alternative to what folks are against rather than *what libertarianism really offers*.



There is an inherent difference between what we are promoting and what you are promoting. You guys are trying to sell Zeitgeist like it is a car with a lot of cool features, but it is a lot more than that. It is a COMMITMENT to a centrally planned model with no proof of concept. The technology you are promoting to get there may have a proof of concept, but getting rid of trading goods, with or without any form of currency has no proof of concept. The biggest problem with what you're trying to promote is the sheer risk of going ahead with something so monstrous without even trying it. I totally think that the thousands of people within the Zeitgeist Movement should take a bunch of this technology and go try it out, build some sky farms, build a circular city, build a mag-lev train. If the government tries to stop you because you aren't paying property taxes or some such nonsense, the liberty movement will have your back, you can bet on that.

We, however, are trying to sell a more universal concept that would lead to the most sustainable and technologically progressive ends for society, all without a central plan. That doesn't mean you can't create a central plan for a group of people who volunteer themselves to be apart of your society, it just means that people get to make that choice. We are trying to convince people that force, violence and coercion are wrong no matter who is doing it, whether an individual or a group of individuals (government). We realize that in the market of ideas there are a lot of viable solutions, and the only way to test those solutions is not in a laboratory via the scientific method, but actually testing them IN society, IN the marketplace, that IS the REAL laboratory! The marketplace is the scientific lab of life to see which ideas are the most effective while taking the least amount of resources. That is why prices are so important in our model, because if you understand economics and pricing, that is the measure used to determine what takes the least amount of resources to produce the most effective good. It's all about cost. vs. quality, and that is something that is subjective, you can't test it in a laboratory unless that laboratory is life.. and you can't test cost vs. quality in the laboratory of life without the COST part factored in.

----------


## Wesker1982

Also fwiw there are quite a few "why I became a libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryst/etc." videos on youtube.

----------


## Jim Casey

> I don't understand what your point is. You are basing your conclusion on the level of commitment of libertarians by some random thread on the RPF?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, instead of saying I am against violence, I will say I am _for_ the non-initiation of aggression. What does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> What supposed commitment are you talking about?


The major point to be made is that human values, including beliefs and opinions, are formed within an environmental context.  Even strongly held core beliefs can change very rapidly under proper environmental conditions. 



> There is an inherent difference between what we are promoting and what you are promoting. You guys are trying to sell Zeitgeist like it is a car with a lot of cool features, but it is a lot more than that. It is a COMMITMENT to a centrally planned model with no proof of concept. The technology you are promoting to get there may have a proof of concept, but getting rid of trading goods, with or without any form of currency has no proof of concept. The biggest problem with what you're trying to promote is the sheer risk of going ahead with something so monstrous without even trying it. I totally think that the thousands of people within the Zeitgeist Movement should take a bunch of this technology and go try it out, build some sky farms, build a circular city, build a mag-lev train. If the government tries to stop you because you aren't paying property taxes or some such nonsense, the liberty movement will have your back, you can bet on that.


There continues to be an increasing number of individuals for whom the concept of universal heritage of global resources is rather quite appealing.  The more obvious the benefits of applying systems theory to a myriad of criteria becomes, the more willing folks will be to take the next logical step forward and apply systems theory to resource management and social development on a global scale.


> We, however, are trying to sell a more universal concept that would lead to the most sustainable and technologically progressive ends for society, all without a central plan. That doesn't mean you can't create a central plan for a group of people who volunteer themselves to be apart of your society, it just means that people get to make that choice. We are trying to convince people that force, violence and coercion are wrong no matter who is doing it, whether an individual or a group of individuals (government). We realize that in the market of ideas there are a lot of viable solutions, and the only way to test those solutions is not in a laboratory via the scientific method, but actually testing them IN society, IN the marketplace, that IS the REAL laboratory! The marketplace is the scientific lab of life to see which ideas are the most effective while taking the least amount of resources. That is why prices are so important in our model, because if you understand economics and pricing, that is the measure used to determine what takes the least amount of resources to produce the most effective good. It's all about cost. vs. quality, and that is something that is subjective, you can't test it in a laboratory unless that laboratory is life.. and you can't test cost vs. quality in the laboratory of life without the COST part factored in.


The market system does not take into account applying the scientific method to resource management and social development.  Market values are based upon human opinions.  The reason advertising is such a profitable career field, second only to fund management, is that advertisers apply the scientific method toward distorting human opinions to maximize profitability.



> Also fwiw there are quite a few "why I became a libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryst/etc." videos on youtube.


Within the past month, the tally of individualized libertarian advocacy videos has been dwarfed by the tally of individualized zeitgeist movement advocacy videos.  Now would be a good time to get on board.  Peter Joseph is catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!

----------


## dannno

> The market system does not take into account applying the scientific method to resource management and social development.  Market values are based upon human opinions.  The reason advertising is such a profitable career field, second only to fund management, is that advertisers apply the scientific method toward distorting human opinions to maximize profitability.


Again, the market system DOES in fact take into account resource management..  As the oil becomes more difficult to find, the price will go up, thus discouraging the market from using it as a resource except in the most needful scenarios. A person might not be willing to pay $15/gallon of gas to go 30-40 miles in their car, but they might be willing to pay that much to get a plastic encasing on the headset of a new car that runs on some other type of energy, maybe a combination of solar and hydrogen.

If everybody had "access" to oil, as much as they want, unless the computer says "no, that's too much", then how do you explain to the people who don't get access for what they want while others are getting access for other things? Do you think everybody will think the computer is "fair"? Ya, sure they can change it if they want to, right? So what's stopping them from saying "$#@!, well, I think there is enough oil and somebody else is holding back or getting bigger deliveries" and they go in and change the computer? Or maybe they don't know $#@! about computers and they just get really frustrated and start despising the system. There's billions of people on the earth, you don't foresee this possibility? You also say market values are "human opinion", but it's a lot more complicated than just human opinion. If anything, applying human based 'resource management' control techniques is human opinion..

----------


## ClayTrainor

All I wanna know is.... How long is it gonna take TZM to move on from making promises in youtube videos, to actually getting me a free jet ski???

----------


## Jim Casey

> Again, the market system DOES in fact take into account resource management..  As the oil becomes more difficult to find, the price will go up, thus discouraging the market from using it as a resource except in the most needful scenarios. A person might not be willing to pay $15/gallon of gas to go 30-40 miles in their car, but they might be willing to pay that much to get a plastic encasing on the headset of a new car that runs on some other type of energy, maybe a combination of solar and hydrogen.


It's not the scientific method applied to resource management and social development that increases demand for oil.  It is the scientific method applied to advertising that distorts social values to the point where people believe they need to own cars to have access to automobile transportation.



> If everybody had "access" to oil, as much as they want, unless the computer says "no, that's too much", then how do you explain to the people who don't get access for what they want while others are getting access for other things? Do you think everybody will think the computer is "fair"? Ya, sure they can change it if they want to, right? So what's stopping them from saying "$#@!, well, I think there is enough oil and somebody else is holding back or getting bigger deliveries" and they go in and change the computer? Or maybe they don't know $#@! about computers and they just get really frustrated and start despising the system. There's billions of people on the earth, you don't foresee this possibility? You also say market values are "human opinion", but it's a lot more complicated than just human opinion. If anything, applying human based 'resource management' control techniques is human opinion..


The social values that encourage conspicuous consumption are the cause of the frustration.  When advertisers aren't preying upon individuals for profit, there is no resounding message that equates material acquisition to human value.  Out of the billions within the population, those most frustrated with their perceived inadequate material acquisition are those most saturated in an environment of economic stratification where advertisers constantly communicate to them that if only they had this new product or service, they could then be socially adequate.

----------


## Wesker1982

> the tally of individualized libertarian advocacy videos has been dwarfed by the tally of individualized zeitgeist movement advocacy videos.  Now would be a good time to get on board.  Peter Joseph is catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!


You can thank the 13 or w/e years of public school indoctrination for the popularity imo. What do you expect when everyone is forced with compulsory "education" that indoctrinates socialism and collectivism? 




> The major point to be made is that human values, including beliefs and opinions, are formed within an environmental context.


Like the compulsory indoctrination system we are put into when we are most vulnerable.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You can thank the 13 or w/e years of public school indoctrination for the popularity imo. What do you expect when everyone is forced with compulsory "education" that indoctrinates socialism and collectivism?


The most important value that the education system indoctrinates is the value of being a consumer.



> Like the compulsory indoctrination system we are put into when we are most vulnerable.


Oftentimes advertisers are more effective at shaping beliefs than teachers.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Advertising is powerful, but not as powerful as good parenting.  I don't recall the education system teaching the value of being a consumer, except a little in economics class.  You must have had a very different experience than I did.  I reviewed a bit of the video below, and it's mostly hot air.  Numerous studies have shown parents to be far more influential on children's behavior and habits than media.




> The most important value that the education system indoctrinates is the value of being a consumer.
> 
> Oftentimes advertisers are more effective at shaping beliefs than teachers.

----------


## dannno

> It's not the scientific method applied to resource management and social development that increases demand for oil.  It is the scientific method applied to advertising that distorts social values to the point where people believe they need to own cars to have access to automobile transportation.


Oh, silly me, here I was thinking that the hundreds of billions of dollars the government steals from people every year to subsidize the roads that progressives love to throw back in our faces was what caused so many people to own cars, and then in the same breath progressives love to talk about how we shouldn't be using cars. Are you able to see the irony in that at all? And are you willing to accept that maybe the reason we are such an automobile based society is because the government subsidizes the activity? What does this have to do with the free market? Nothing.

----------


## Wesker1982

> The most important value that the education system indoctrinates is the value of being a consumer.


How do you reach this conclusion? I remember hearing a lot more about sharing, nationalism, and collectivism when I was in school. 




> Oftentimes advertisers are more effective at shaping beliefs than teachers.


Where is the evidence of this? In this video they mention idolizing violence and G.I. Joe's. These advertisements are only effective because we are brainwashed in school to idolize soldiers and war. If we were taught about how horrible war is (the truth) instead of how murdering strangers for your country is honorable and brave (a lie), these ads for violence wouldn't be even close to as effective. 

We have a whole system that is founded and maintained on violence. This fact legitimizes violence. If we weren't indoctrinated into believing in the legitimacy of violence, these ads wouldn't exist because they wouldn't work. 

If we weren't indoctrinated into believing everyone must be equal, kids wouldn't think they had to be like Barbie or G.I. Joe. If we were taught the importance of individuality vs equality, kids might take more pride in who they are (their individuality) instead of trying to live up to some ideal image.

I'm not necessarily arguing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of advertising. But _if_ advertising is so effective, it is because the  values they promote are the same ones indoctrinated into kids through compulsory schooling. 

I think that your conclusion that compulsory indoctrination is _less_ effective in shaping beliefs than advertising is unfounded and false. And failing to see that the indoctrination is the major factor in contributing to the effectiveness of advertising is a mistake. 

These advertisements are just feeding off of what we are brainwashed into valuing from compulsory indoctrination.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Advertising is powerful, but not as powerful as good parenting.  I don't recall the education system teaching the value of being a consumer, except a little in economics class.  You must have had a very different experience than I did.  I reviewed a bit of the video below, and it's mostly hot air.  Numerous studies have shown parents to be far more influential on children's behavior and habits than media.


The parent's influence in their children is powerful in that they have a direct impact upon how much advertising their child is exposed to.  How much the parents are exposed to advertising themselves also reflects whatever distorted social values they've received through advertising and their likelihood of indoctrinating their children with those same distorted social values.  



> Oh, silly me, here I was thinking that the hundreds of billions of dollars the government steals from people every year to subsidize the roads that progressives love to throw back in our faces was what caused so many people to own cars, and then in the same breath progressives love to talk about how we shouldn't be using cars. Are you able to see the irony in that at all? And are you willing to accept that maybe the reason we are such an automobile based society is because the government subsidizes the activity? What does this have to do with the free market? Nothing.


The government doesn't build the roads.  The government allocates resources to contractors in the free market to build roads, roads upon which people believe they need to own the cars that transport them in order to have access to that transport.

State growth and influence within a society will grow in direct proportion to how much that society embraces free market principles because the economic stratification encourages folks to protect the freedoms that their purchasing power buys them by whatever means necessary.

----------


## Jim Casey

> How do you reach this conclusion? I remember hearing a lot more about sharing, nationalism, and collectivism when I was in school. 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence of this? In this video they mention idolizing violence and G.I. Joe's. These advertisements are only effective because we are brainwashed in school to idolize soldiers and war. If we were taught about how horrible war is (the truth) instead of how murdering strangers for your country is honorable and brave (a lie), these ads for violence wouldn't be even close to as effective. 
> 
> We have a whole system that is founded and maintained on violence. This fact legitimizes violence. If we weren't indoctrinated into believing in the legitimacy of violence, these ads wouldn't exist because they wouldn't work. 
> 
> If we weren't indoctrinated into believing everyone must be equal, kids wouldn't think they had to be like Barbie or G.I. Joe. If we were taught the importance of individuality vs equality, kids might take more pride in who they are (their individuality) instead of trying to live up to some ideal image.
> ...


The advertisements are the brainwashing.  Advertisers apply the scientific method to distorting social values in favor of profitability.  Advertisers sell us on the value of war for profit.  The government simply allocates the resources to those advertisers and the free market enterprises that get the contracts.  

Schools teach us to be good consumers and buy into the value of war for profit.  Schools are good places for the military to recruit students who want to increase their social value by having the purchasing power that a soldier's salary offers.  The kind of sharing and collectivism that schools teach is a shared interest in collective militaristic profiteering.

----------


## dannno

> The government doesn't build the roads.  The government allocates resources to contractors in the free market to build roads, roads upon which people believe they need to own the cars that transport them in order to have access to that transport.
> 
> State growth and influence within a society will grow in direct proportion to how much that society embraces free market principles because the economic stratification encourages folks to protect the freedoms that their purchasing power buys them by whatever means necessary.


You don't have the first clue what a free market even is, this is absolutely preposterous.  If the government is stealing from people and giving it to corporations to build a road, then that is the OPPOSITE of the free market. If you want to start convincing people who believe in the free market that it is some how bad, why don't you learn about what it actually is and use the definition correctly? Otherwise you lose all credibility with us, which is what you have done.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You don't have the first clue what a free market even is, this is absolutely preposterous.  If the government is stealing from people and giving it to corporations to build a road, then that is the OPPOSITE of the free market. If you want to start convincing people who believe in the free market that it is some how bad, why don't you learn about what it actually is and use the definition correctly? Otherwise you lose all credibility with us, which is what you have done.


I understand the illusions that the free market concept creates, and the assertion that you consider to be preposterous is evidently valid.  No other nation on earth has a society with more adherence to free market principles than the United States, and no other nation on earth has a larger and more powerful government than the United States.

Folks who profit most in a free market aren't going to be concerned with going against principles if their social status is threatened.  They know that the freedoms they have come from the purchasing power they've accumulated.  The development of the state is simply an extension of their purchasing power.

It's rather telling to hear you speak for the collective regarding the opinions of individuals in terms of the credibility of my message.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I understand the illusions that the free market concept creates, and the assertion that you consider to be preposterous is evidently valid. * No other nation on earth has a society with more adherence to free market principles than the United States, and no other nation on earth has a larger and more powerful government than the United States.
> *
> Folks who profit most in a free market aren't going to be concerned with going against principles if their social status is threatened.  They know that the freedoms they have come from the purchasing power they've accumulated.  The development of the state is simply an extension of their purchasing power.
> 
> It's rather telling to hear you speak for the collective regarding the opinions of individuals in terms of the credibility of my message.


The United Sates in its official capacity (the government) abandoned capitalism almost from the outset, especially with the adoption of the CONstitution.  Many individual people embrace capitalism, but the regime has sought to manage and undermine this from almost the beginning.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The United Sates in its official capacity (the government) abandoned capitalism almost from the outset, especially with the adoption of the CONstitution.  Many individual people embrace capitalism, but the regime has sought to manage and undermine this from almost the beginning.


I'm rather surprised that someone with over 16k posts on a forum named after a self-proclaimed champion of the constitution would have such a perspective, but I guess it's just a matter of getting to know the crowd here.

The social values defended by the constitution were the only thing that made a free market society work at all in this country, and this free market society was the best society the world had ever known up until about WWII when the United States proved that it could get more done by planning in terms of resources instead of planning in terms of market prices and capital available.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm rather surprised that someone with over 16k posts on a forum named after a self-proclaimed champion of the constitution would have such a perspective, but I guess it's just a matter of getting to know the crowd here.
> 
> The social values defended by the constitution were the only thing that made a free market society work at all in this country, and this free market society was the best society the world had ever known up until about WWII when the United States proved that it could get more done by planning in terms of resources instead of planning in terms of market prices and capital available.


Not everyone on this forum is a Constitutionalist.  You are confusing the social values of the Declaration of Independence with those of the Constitution.  The Constitution was a massive power grab by the pro-big central government Federalists and greatly dampened the free market forces that were thriving before it existed.  The authors of the Constitution (in particular Hamilton) were mercantilist, not capitalist.  Were these Constitutionalists capitalist, the Free Banking period would never have ended, and we would not be fighting the FED and other fascist institutions to this very day.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Not everyone on this forum is a Constitutionalist.  You are confusing the social values of the Declaration of Independence with those of the Constitution.  The Constitution was a massive power grab by the pro-big central government Federalists and greatly dampened the free market forces that were thriving before it existed.  The authors of the Constitution (in particular Hamilton) were mercantilist, not capitalist.  Were these Constitutionalists capitalist, the Free Banking period would never have ended, and we would not be fighting the FED and other fascist institutions to this very day.


The rise of mercantilism and central banking within a free market system are clear examples of folks who are protecting the freedoms they've gained from having increased purchasing power.  Such concepts will always be rationalized by those seeking to maintain social status within the market economy just as easily as the concepts of theft and violence will be rationalized.  Indeed the human brain is as traumatized by social ostracism as it is by encountering physical violence.

----------


## Flash

> You don't have the first clue what a free market even is, this is absolutely preposterous.  If the government is stealing from people and giving it to corporations to build a road, then that is the OPPOSITE of the free market. If you want to start convincing people who believe in the free market that it is some how bad, why don't you learn about what it actually is and use the definition correctly? Otherwise you lose all credibility with us, which is what you have done.


Yeah exactly. Plus, corporations are creations of the government and many argue they wouldn't exist in a truly free market. And Corporations rely on government roads to transport goods.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Jim, why are you spending so much time talking to people on this forum?  Do you feel that you're convincing anyone, but yourself? I haven't seen you so much as even sway a single person from this forum towards TZM.  I admire your dedication, but I feel that you may be just engaging in a grand waste of time.

Wouldn't your time be better spent working with fellow Zeitgeisters about how you're going to establish an empirical and testable model for this society?   You guys would convince a whole lot of people REAL fast, if you could build a sustainable model that provides things in abundance for just 100 people, let alone the entire world.

What's stopping you guys demonstrating how your model can work for a small group of people?

----------


## Wren

I remember watching an interview of Jacque on a british talk show and this part in particular bothered me: 




You can not help but come to the conclusion after watching this that these people are just treading the waters and have no concrete concept of how to implement a system designed for the entire planet.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I remember watching an interview of Jacque on a british talk show and this part in particular bothered me: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not help but come to the conclusion after watching this that these people are just treading the waters and have no concrete concept of how to implement a system designed for the entire planet.


That whole thing was pretty embarrassing.  You could see the cognitive dissonance getting the best of Jacques, he seemed quite frustrated.

lol, at the very last listener comment.

"Jack, just say that you will make the decisions, I will be happy for you to do that."

----------


## Wren

> lol, at the very last listener comment.
> 
> "Jack, just say that you will make the decisions, I will be happy for you to do that."


I know, it's laughable. They just assume people will go along with central planning for the entire planet and anyone with a dissenting opinion will just keep quiet  the non-aggression principle comes to mind in that circumstance

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jim, why are you spending so much time talking to people on this forum?  Do you feel that you're convincing anyone, but yourself? I haven't seen you so much as even sway a single person from this forum towards TZM.  I admire your dedication, but I feel that you may be just engaging in a grand waste of time.


I never consider educational communication to be a waste of time.

_The best learners... often make the worst teachers. They are, in a very real sense, perceptually challenged. They cannot imagine what it must be like to struggle to learn something that comes so naturally to them._
-Stephen Brookfield



> Wouldn't your time be better spent working with fellow Zeitgeisters about how you're going to establish an empirical and testable model for this society?   You guys would convince a whole lot of people REAL fast, if you could build a sustainable model that provides things in abundance for just 100 people, let alone the entire world.


The model was established thousands of years ago and maintained all during that time by egalitarian hunter gatherers.  It's not the empirical features of a concept that sell, it's the rhetorical benefits, as any advertiser knows.  In fact, Peter Joseph once had a career as an advertiser, and his skill is evident in spreading awareness of the benefits of a RBE to the point where over 500,000 individuals have joined TZM around the world in less than 3 years.



> What's stopping you guys demonstrating how your model can work for a small group of people?


There's nothing stopping anyone who wants to study anthropology except the limits of their purchasing power.



> I remember watching an interview of Jacque on a british talk show and this part in particular bothered me: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not help but come to the conclusion after watching this that these people are just treading the waters and have no concrete concept of how to implement a system designed for the entire planet.


Jacque offered concrete examples of societies that he has joined and offered ideas that they took action upon.  He didn't know what decisions those individuals would make as a result of his interactions with those individuals, but he did learn that by applying the scientific method to social concern that society can be changed that way.  He doesn't have to "implement a system", he has to spread the ideas.  Folks take the ideas and run with them themselves.

Thanks for posting that video, I never watched that one before and I learned more from watching it.  So much for discussion being a "grand waste of time".



> That whole thing was pretty embarrassing.  You could see the cognitive dissonance getting the best of Jacques, he seemed quite frustrated.
> 
> lol, at the very last listener comment.
> 
> "Jack, just say that you will make the decisions, I will be happy for you to do that."


It's pretty cool the way Roxanne will assert herself during these discussions.  Jacque is applying a scientific method that he knows works when he talks at people.  Roxanne applies that same method as well, but comes across as less grizzled because she has already learned all about what Jacque has accomplished without actually having done all that he had to do to reach the level of knowledge that Jacque has reached. 



> I know, it's laughable. They just assume people will go along with central planning for the entire planet and anyone with a dissenting opinion will just keep quiet  the non-aggression principle comes to mind in that circumstance


It's really not central planning, since people "vote" on ideas presented by acting upon those ideas.  I don't know where you get the idea that Jacque wants folks who disagree to "just keep quiet".  All his years of scientifically valid success in adjusting societies show just how well his methods of communication work, and he also understands that these things take time.  After all, these "dissenting opinions" are nothing more than expressions of an individual's value, and values are formed within the context of environment.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Hey, you're free to stay around here and chat all you want, I hope you're having fun.   I just don't think you're convincing anyone to so much as even consider TZM, other than yourself.  

you would have a much easier time convincing people, if you could actually demonstrate your model with evidence.  There's no way you'll convince anyone who grasps economics, that you can produce resources in abundance for the entire world, if you can't even demonstrate it for 100 people.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Hey, you're free to stay around here and chat all you want, I hope you're having fun.   I just don't think you're convincing anyone to so much as even consider TZM, other than yourself.  
> 
> you would have a much easier time convincing people, if you could actually demonstrate your model with evidence.  There's no way you'll convince anyone who grasps economics, that you can produce resources in abundance for the entire world, if you can't even demonstrate it for 100 people.


The members of TZM have a much better grasp of economics than the vast majority of people on earth have.  The free market system has a propensity for monopoly and cartel.  Hunter gatherers have a tendency to be non-hierarchical and leaderless.  Egalitarianism has been demonstrated by different tribes for a very long time for anyone willing to witness the demonstration.



This is without a doubt the most comprehensive book on economics out there, since the point is to actually economize the resources.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bLu...page&q&f=false




And in this book on economics...



...we learn about the end result of the free market system.

http://books.google.com/books?id=79G...page&q&f=false

What most folks consider to be economics is often a bizarre delusion.




It is best for us all to understand where this notion of economics is leading, whether or not we're convinced just yet.

----------


## dannno

> The members of TZM have a much better grasp of economics than the vast majority of people on earth have. * The free market system has a propensity for monopoly and cartel.*  Hunter gatherers have a tendency to be non-hierarchical and leaderless.  Egalitarianism has been demonstrated by different tribes for a very long time for anyone willing to witness the demonstration.



Again, I'm trying to give you advice.. you're convincing is horrible here because you don't understand the definition of a free market.. It is CORPORATISM that causes monopolies and cartels, the fact is that the free market causes there NOT to be monopolies and cartels. Period. There is literally no argument you can make because that is an absolute, positive, scientific fact. We don't have a free market, we have corporatism. That is what is causing the monopolies and cartels today. If you can't see why, then you aren't listening.

*If you want to argue that the profit system leads a free market toward corporatism, and that causes monopolies and cartels, then make that your argument.* Until then, you have zero credibility here because your understanding of economics is about a 1 on a scale of 0-10.. you get a 1 because you understand a little bit about central banking, but you're missing a whole 'nother 9 points.

Your argument would be more effective with a person who has zero understanding of economics, who, like you, doesn't understand how a free market in and of itself functions to do the opposite of literally everything you say.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The members of TZM have a much better grasp of economics than the vast majority of people on earth have.


lol. 




> The free market system has a propensity for monopoly and cartel.


If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service.  If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.

Which do you prefer?  Monopolies or markets?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Again, I'm trying to give you advice.. you're convincing is horrible here because you don't understand the definition of a free market.. It is CORPORATISM that causes monopolies and cartels, the fact is that the free market causes there NOT to be monopolies and cartels. Period. There is literally no argument you can make because that is an absolute, positive, scientific fact. We don't have a free market, we have corporatism. That is what is causing the monopolies and cartels today. If you can't see why, then you aren't listening.
> 
> *If you want to argue that the profit system leads a free market toward corporatism, and that causes monopolies and cartels, then make that your argument.* Until then, you have zero credibility here because your understanding of economics is about a 1 on a scale of 0-10.. you get a 1 because you understand a little bit about central banking, but you're missing a whole 'nother 9 points.
> 
> Your argument would be more effective with a person who has zero understanding of economics, who, like you, doesn't understand how a free market in and of itself functions to do the opposite of literally everything you say.


I'm glad that I score low on your achievement scale of 1-10, because I'm not here to achieve based on your standards, I'm here to educate and learn.

My assertion regarding the free market inevitably leading toward mercantilism, central banking, corporatism, fascism and all these other forms of primitive experiments is quite simple:  

Human behavior is based on human values that are developed within the context of environment.  The individuals whose social status is threatened by the environment will adjust their values and behaviors accordingly.  If free market forces are going to push me out of business due to competition, I don't want to lose the social status I have from being an industry leader.  I'll do whatever it takes to maintain my social status, free market principles aren't as relevant to me as my fear of losing social value, because loss of social value is life threatening.  Since my social value is based upon what goods or services my purchasing power allows me to buy from other people, including the basic necessities for survival, my life depends upon maintaining my social value and thus my purchasing power.

Nature is a dictatorship.  Freedom in the market system is an illusion.  My survival comes first before my concerns of whether or not theft, violence, extortion, ect. are purportedly incongruent with freedom.



> lol. 
> 
> If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service.  If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.
> 
> Which do you prefer?  Monopolies or markets?


Cooperation is better than competition.  There is no need to be corrupt when individuals engage in win-win behavior rather than win-lose behavior.  As long as money is being used, market value wins and life force value loses, regardless of how many entities compete to maximize profits, because ultimately nobody is really working together to provide the best service, they're merely working to create the most profit.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

heavenlyboy34 was right....

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Cooperation is better than competition.


You didn't answer my question.  Are you saying that you would prefer a monopoly on goods and services to a market for goods and services?

And Competition is cooperation.  Right now me and you are proposing competing theories, and we are both cooperating with eachother in a debate on these theories.  

Scientists must have the ability to propose competitive theories to test against the evidence, or else the scientific method is pointless.  The scientific method is competitive.

People must have the ability to propose competitive solutions to problems in society, or else you have a monopoly.  Is that what you prefer?  You want a monopoly to eliminate competition?

----------


## dannno

> And Competition is cooperation.


Ya, that's true, something I have been trying to convince my roommate for some time.. I give the example of the farmer's market. You go down there, and all the sellers are competing for the most customers, but they are also cooperating in that a particular vendor or set of vendors will attract individuals down to the market where they will be exposed to their competitors. If a single stand setup at a time and they took turns and announced when they would be there, they wouldn't get as much business as if all 50 stands setup and everybody comes down and is exposed to all the different variety of stands. I might go down and buy a jug of apple juice and end up buying some honey or some fruit or something I didn't expect to want until I got there.

There might be 10 stands that sell tomatoes, and only 8 stands really should be selling tomatoes. The stands that have the best tomatoes for the lowest price will continue to sell tomatoes where the stands that don't will decide to grow something else. Now you have a greater selection of produce, and the customers of the market are happier. All the vendors cooperate in this way to provide the highest quality and most selection of produce at the lowest prices. You just can't get that from a centrally planned economy, even one that has surveys..

----------


## dannno

> My assertion regarding the free market inevitably leading toward mercantilism, central banking, corporatism, fascism and all these other forms of primitive experiments is quite simple:  
> 
> Human behavior is based on human values that are developed within the context of environment.  The individuals whose social status is threatened by the environment will adjust their values and behaviors accordingly.  If free market forces are going to push me out of business due to competition, I don't want to lose the social status I have from being an industry leader.  I'll do whatever it takes to maintain my social status, free market principles aren't as relevant to me as my fear of losing social value, because loss of social value is life threatening.  Since my social value is based upon what goods or services my purchasing power allows me to buy from other people, including the basic necessities for survival, my life depends upon maintaining my social value and thus my purchasing power.



Everything that you just said is bad is anti-free market. Free markets are not an illusion, we just don't have one. We could have one, and attempt the best we could to keep one, but a big reason we don't is because the media has brainwashed us that free markets are bad. Even you are brainwashed to think free markets are bad when they are in fact good.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Everything that you just said is bad is anti-free market. Free markets are not an illusion, we just don't have one. We could have one, and attempt the best we could to keep one, but a big reason we don't is because the media has brainwashed us that free markets are bad. Even you are brainwashed to think free markets are bad when they are in fact good.


Face it danno, he's either trolling at this point (doing it for the lulz) or he has his head crammed so far up his ass that he can smell his tonsils.

----------


## Jim Casey

> You didn't answer my question.  Are you saying that you would prefer a monopoly on goods and services to a market for goods and services?


My basic survival needs comes first.  An elegantly designed system for global resource management and social development will be proven to be less life-threatening than competing in a market system in an attempt to obtain enough purchasing power to survive.



> And Competition is cooperation.  Right now me and you are proposing competing theories, and we are both cooperating with eachother in a debate on these theories.


A theory is either scientifically valid or it is not.  We're cooperating in submitting data to reach a conclusion.  Free market theory does not take into account life force value.  RBE theory does.  This is why capitalism can rightfully be diagnosed as a cancer in society at this point, because social values are so entwined with stratified levels of purchasing power that society itself is increasingly failing to recognize life force value as part of the social equation.  The emergence of TZM is evidence that the social world does indeed have an immune system.



> Scientists must have the ability to propose competitive theories to test against the evidence, or else the scientific method is pointless.  The scientific method is competitive.


The scientific method involves analyzing data to reach a conclusion.  When one theory is proven invalid and another theory proven valid, it's simply a matter of more input that helped arrive at the new conclusion.  It's not a matter of one theory winning and another losing because the original theory was entirely valid prior to the introduction of the new data.



> People must have the ability to propose competitive solutions to problems in society, or else you have a monopoly.  Is that what you prefer?  You want a monopoly to eliminate competition?


Solutions need not be proposed in competition to other solutions.  Competition does not allow people to do their best, cooperation does.  The only variation between whether or not cooperation is better than competition is in that the more complicated the task is, the worse competition does.



> Your argument would be more effective with a person who has zero understanding of economics, who, like you, doesn't understand how a free market in and of itself functions to do the opposite of literally everything you say.


I understand quite well that many folks believe that free market theory has all the solutions to social concerns.  It's similar to an organism that fails to recognize the expanding of cancerous cells.



> Everything that you just said is bad is anti-free market. Free markets are not an illusion, we just don't have one. We could have one, and attempt the best we could to keep one, but a big reason we don't is because the media has brainwashed us that free markets are bad. Even you are brainwashed to think free markets are bad when they are in fact good.


Free market values were good.  They sustained societies for a very long time.  So did slavery.



> Face it danno, he's either trolling at this point (doing it for the lulz) or he has his head crammed so far up his ass that he can smell his tonsils.


It is possible to analyze the data of my message without dismissing it because of the perceived lower social value of the source.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Jim, you aren't answering my fundamental question.




> If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service. If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.
> 
> Which do you prefer? Monopolies or markets?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Face it danno, he's either trolling at this point (doing it for the lulz) or he has his head crammed so far up his ass that he can smell his tonsils.


I'm assuming the latter.  I've had quite a few conversations with Zeitgeisters, and Jim is about the norm.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Jim, you aren't answering my fundamental question.


I don't prefer either.  You could ask me if I prefer my home be infested with flies or cockroaches, I would still prefer neither.



> I'm assuming the latter.  I've had quite a few conversations with Zeitgeisters, and Jim is about the norm.


The RBE is catchin' on, I'm telling ya!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I don't prefer either.


That doesn't make any sense.  Are you saying that there should be absolutely nothing/no-one to provide any services to society?

If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service. If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.  If you have no entity providing services, than you have no services.

You're dodging my question, and you know it.




> You could ask me if I prefer my home be infested with flies or cockroaches, I would still prefer neither.


If your home became infested with cockroaches and flies, how would you get rid of them?  Are you going to deal with the entire infestation on your own?... are you going to create all the products and chemicals you need to get rid of them, on your own? 

If not, than you need someone/something to provide these products/services to you.  Who/What SPECIFICALLY will do that, and what is their incentive?




> The RBE is catchin' on, I'm telling ya!


So is creationism, but that doesn't mean there's any validity to it.

----------


## Wesker1982

> The RBE is catchin' on, I'm telling ya!


Unfortunately, socialism has been popular for quite a while. Adding robots doesn't make it a new idea.

----------


## Jim Casey

> That doesn't make any sense.  Are you saying that there should be absolutely nothing/no-one to provide any services to society?


I would prefer that resource management and social development not be based upon opinions of individuals in a market economy.



> If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service. If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.  If you have no entity providing services, than you have no services.


When you have individuals applying the scientific method to resource management and social development on a global scale, you have a resource based economy.



> You're dodging my question, and you know it.


I'm explaining the alternative to markets and monopolies.



> If your home became infested with cockroaches and flies, how would you get rid of them?  Are you going to deal with the entire infestation on your own?... are you going to create all the products and chemicals you need to get rid of them, on your own?


Nobody ever really does anything "on their own".  We're social creatures, we help one another.



> If not, than you need someone/something to provide these products/services to you.  Who/What SPECIFICALLY will do that, and what is their incentive?


Folks are always willing to help one another out, because we all rely upon one another to survive.



> So is creationism, but that doesn't mean there's any validity to it.


Creationism is a valid means of educating certain social values with the context of religious indoctrination, but it's not a valid means of applying the scientific method to geology or quantum physics or a myriad of other studies. 



> Unfortunately, socialism has been popular for quite a while. Adding robots doesn't make it a new idea.


Applying the scientific method to social concern and developing a systems approach to global resource management is a novel idea.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I would prefer that resource management and social development not be based upon opinions of individuals in a market economy.


If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service. If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.

You appear to have chosen monopoly, although you don't seem to want to admit it to yourself.




> When you have individuals applying the scientific method to resource management and social development on a global scale, you have a resource based economy.


That would still be either a market or a monopoly, depending on whether or not there is more than 1 entity providing a particular service.  

If there are 2 or more people or groups of people producing different models of bicycles, and people get to choose which one they prefer... that's a market.  If there is only 1 bike manufacturer, than it is a monopoly.  There is no in between, unless you prefer a mix of markets and monopolies.




> I'm explaining the alternative to markets and monopolies.


No, you are demonstrating that you do not grasp basic economics.  If there is more than 1 service provider, there is a market. If there is only 1 service provider, there is a monopoly.

You are just dancing around around this economic fact and asserting your opinion.  Not very scientific of you.

----------


## Jim Casey

> If you have more than 1 entity providing a service in a geographic region, you have a market for that service. If you have only 1 entity providing that service in a geographic region, you have a monopoly on that service.


When the concept of property and money are dissolved, there is no need for distribution of goods and services to even be considered as some kind of entity or group of entities that is somehow detached from society itself in some way.



> You appear to have chosen monopoly, although you don't seem to want to admit it to yourself.


I choose cooperation, and the application of the scientific method for social concern and global resource management.  I choose to view distribution of goods and services as responsibilities for technicians maintaining an optimized cybernetic system, rather than something that has to be broken down into separate entities or a separate entity existing to profit in a market system.



> That would still be either a market or a monopoly, depending on whether or not there is more than 1 entity providing a particular service.


Only when the concept of property exists within a society does the services and goods need to be broken down into separate entities that are somehow detached from the society itself.



> If there are 2 or more people or groups of people producing different models of bicycles, and people get to choose which one they prefer... that's a market.  If there is only 1 bike manufacturer, than it is a monopoly.  There is no in between, unless you prefer a mix of markets and monopolies.


If you have technicians maintaining an optimized cybernetic system that manufactures the best bicycles by applying the scientific method using the most advanced knowledge to date and making them accessible and upgradeable to everyone, there is no need for any kind of bicycle manufacturing entity or group of entities that is somehow detached from the rest of society.



> No, you are demonstrating that you do not grasp basic economics.  If there is more than 1 service provider, there is a market. If there is only 1 service provider, there is a monopoly.


So long as the concept of property itself exists, this perspective of economics is applicable.  There is absolutely no demand for competition when cooperating technicians already maintain a cybernetic system that provides everyone access to the best services possible according to conclusions reached using the most recent knowledge and applying the scientific method. 



> You are just dancing around around this economic fact and asserting your opinion.  Not very scientific of you.


Property, money, and markets are economic concepts.  Economic facts have to do with the data collected via global resource surveys and the social concerns to which those resources are allocated.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Well Jim, I must say that I feel that you are not comprehending my points, for whatever reason.  I could go respond to each thing you just said, but I do not see any value in it.  I am not learning from you, and you appear to be actively rejecting pretty much everything people here are trying to explain to you.  I feel there is no value for me in continuing this conversation with you.

Best of luck!  Get back to me when you have an empirical and testable model for your ideas.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Applying the scientific method to social concern and developing a systems approach to global resource management is a novel idea.


It's not Marxism, we added the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD* TO _CENTRAL PLANNING_!

----------


## Jim Casey

> Well Jim, I must say that I feel that you are not comprehending my points, for whatever reason.  I could go respond to each thing you just said, but I do not see any value in it.  I am not learning from you, and you appear to be actively rejecting pretty much everything people here are trying to explain to you.  I feel there is no value for me in continuing this conversation with you.
> 
> Best of luck!  Get back to me when you have an empirical and testable model for your ideas.


Well, you might enjoy a couple of the critiques I shared on the TZM forums regarding possible transitional alternatives, since you're not getting the results you would like to see based on your standards from my replies to your posts.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...tart=30#322369
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...=322016#322386



> It's not Marxism, we added the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD* TO _CENTRAL PLANNING_!


The historical context of the phrase "central planning" has always been applied to systems wherein individual opinions of those with the most political influence make the decisions.  When applying the scientific method to social concern, decisions are arrived at based on the current level of knowledge within the society itself.  The purportedly decentralized methods of the always misnomered as "free" market system are also based upon individual opinion, but rather the opinions are based upon financial influence rather than political influence.

Here's an interview with Fresco from less than 2 weeks ago.

----------


## Dreamofunity

> The historical context of the phrase "central planning" has always been applied to systems wherein individual opinions of those with the most political influence make the decisions.  When applying the scientific method to social concern, decisions are arrived at based on the current level of knowledge within the society itself.  The purportedly decentralized methods of the always misnomered as "free" market system are also based upon individual opinion, but rather the opinions are based upon financial influence rather than political influence.


The whole point of the decentralized economy vs centralized is that knowledge is decentralized. No one individual, robot, computer, scientist, etc can know 'the current level of knowledge within the society.'

Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in a Society is a beneficial read.


In particular:



> "What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions the answer is simple enough. *If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic.* That is, the answer to the question of what is the best use of the available means is implicit in our assumptions. The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form: put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses. 
> 
> This, however, is emphatically not the economic problem which society faces. And the economic calculus which we have developed to solve this logical problem, though an important step toward the solution of the economic problem of society, does not yet provide an answer to it. The reason for this is that the "data" from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society "given" to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given.
> 
> The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate "given" resources—if "given" is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these "data." It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality."


Unfortunately, we don't possess all the relevent information.




> To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world.

----------


## Jim Casey

> The whole point of the decentralized economy vs centralized is that knowledge is decentralized. No one individual, robot, computer, scientist, etc can know 'the current level of knowledge within the society.'
> 
> Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in a Society is a beneficial read.
> 
> 
> In particular:
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, we don't possess all the relevent information.


Computers can and do manage logistical concerns better than any individuals possibly can.  A computer is a simply a tool, just like a scale.  Individual or group opinions regarding the weight of an object can be turned over to a scale to settle the matter.  If one person says a package weighs 40 pounds and another person says a package weighs 50 pounds, the scale will settle the matter.

No individual or group can say exactly how many airplanes are flying in the sky at any given time or how high those planes are flying, but a computer can tell you just that.

Relevant economic data has nothing to do with the concepts of property, money, or markets.  The real logistical equations have to do with economizing the use of global resources as applied to social concerns.

Technical problems that arise within a monetary market system won't be solved without dealing with the logistical flaws inherent within a paradigm that distorts the data of global resource inventory and basic human needs with the concepts of property, profits, and markets.

Here's a 92 minute discussion about these divergent value systems.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I dedicate this to all those who believe in the Venus Project!


Still the best post of the thread.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Still the best post of the thread.


I would say this thread also needs a video dedicated to those opposed to TVP/TZM.

----------


## TortoiseDream

> Relevant economic data has nothing to do with the concepts of property, money, or markets. The *real logistical equations* have to do with economizing the use of global resources as applied to social concerns.


Can I see some examples?

----------


## Wesker1982



----------


## Wesker1982

> During my trip to Haiti, I got into a discussion with my fellow volunteers about the financial crisis. Things were going quite well as we all agreed that the rich investment bankers deserved no taxpayer bailout. However, my hopes were dashed when one of the more intellectual guys suddenly declared the problem was capitalism, and that a "resource-based economy" would relieve the world of scarcity.


Venus Needs Some Austrians: http://mises.org/daily/4636

----------


## ProIndividual

All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this

----------


## RiseAgainst

Bump for relevance to new thread.  It was fun reading back through this seeing my old username argue with Jim.

----------


## Jim Casey

Peter and Stefan had this discussion just yesterday, they might follow it up with more.

----------


## osan

> The members of TZM have a much better grasp of economics than the vast majority of people on earth have.


Given the depth and breadth of the general state of ignorance, this isn't saying much in favor of TZM.  I have watched their productions and they are not convincing.  I understand macroeconomics pretty well and thus far TZM demonstrates nothing of which I am aware in terms of this gushing abundance to which they make interminable reference.  I am more than willing to be convinced - nothing would make me happier - but so far all I have seen from them is something that looks suspiciously like frantic hand-waving.





> The free market system has a propensity for monopoly and cartel.


An unsupported assertion that I suspect derives from a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a true free-market system.  Be clear that there is no free market system operating above-board in any industrial or post-industrial nation on this planet.  Grey and black markets _tend_ to be much closer to a true free market precisely because of the absence of government interference.  The so-called "free markets" of the post-industrial West are anything but free; they are corruption-riddled dens of dollar nepotism and inbreeding with legally contrived and established barriers to entry, just to name one example.  To mistake such markets as those of the free variety is indeed a colossal error.

In a true free market, monopolies are allowed but are NEVER sanctioned by the sword of government and are therefore unlikely to survive for very long.  The absence of the sword in areas such as intellectual property matters, for example, pretty well renders the likelihood of the rise of a monopoly vanishingly small and the chances of it surviving long virtually zero.




> Hunter gatherers have a tendency to be non-hierarchical and leaderless.  Egalitarianism has been demonstrated by different tribes for a very long time for anyone willing to witness the demonstration.


I agree strongly with this, but what has it to do with free markets?  If anything, such societies had true free markets precisely because the people had no "government" up their butts, making their lives miserable.



> This is without a doubt the most comprehensive book on economics out there, since _the point is to actually economize the resources_.


Are you suggesting that businesses at large are not doing this now?  If so, you have not been in the business world much.




> What most folks consider to be economics is often a bizarre delusion.


Your meaning here is not clear.  Taken in strictly literal terms you may well be correct, but that is only because "most" folks have less than zero education on the topic.  If you are implying that most people who formally study economics are deluded in the manner you claim, I might call that one notably more arguable and onus would rest with you to elaborate and demonstrate in some convincing detail how and why your assertion is so.




> It is best for us all to understand where this notion of economics is leading, whether or not we're convinced just yet.


I would likewise suggest it would be best for you to understand that that to which you refer is NOT "free market" economics - not by a very long shot.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Peter and Stefan had this discussion just yesterday, they might follow it up with more.


Here's PJ's review of this debate.

----------

