General Questions from a member of the Zeitgeist Movement

[teacherone]

yawnnnn...

more mental masturbation while the world burns...

 

[Travlyr]

In a truly free market and free land the main currency would mostly likely end up being gold which is in limited supply. More productivity, more supply of goods, same supply of money chasing those goods, prices go down. Prices go down, people don't necessarily need full time jobs to get by or even jobs at all.

On top of that if production of goods is solved through technological improvements people will enjoy a higher standard and will have more time to pursue other ventures such as the services sector.

Excellent post. I wish more people understood just how much better off they will be using real money and trading honestly with each other. The standard of living is much higher for most people under honest laissez-faire free-market capitalism. Disparity of wealth shrinks based on effort, ability and persistence. Opportunity abounds equally.

 

[specsaregood]

My own opinion is that the central bankers would eat the ZG fairies for breakfast, with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

I must admit, I was not aware of a "zeitgeist movement". Is that the name they go by, "zeitgeist fairies"? Doesn't sound to promising for them.

 

[Wesker1982]

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There's no stopping them from expressing themselves.
Most people realize the consequences of smoking from all the research done showing it leads to an increased risk of lung cancer, heart disease, etc. which is where the internal environment (a person's capacity to think and choose) hopefully comes into play.

All we can do is provide healthier alternatives to individuals so they can choose for themselves a better lifestyle. No machine will tell us what to do or how to act (with the exception of threatening other people's lives).

There are unwritten rules which already exist within society. e.g. You probably shouldn't open the emergency door in a jet while flying, don't fart in an elevator with other people, and don't share a urinal

Sure it happens... but there are common social norms which will develop in a RBE which will make these things much less common.

What is stopping zeitgeisters from building one of their proposed cities right now? Absolutely nothing. So go build one somewhere and prove it works. Since nature always has and always will be anarchy or a free market the only thing that can never be controlled is eliminating choice. Zeitgeisters lead me to believe they think they can eliminate choice, or competition in self defense, by implementing a global system. I think it is delusional to think one can eliminate choice from nature simply with a global monopoly. As has been repeatedly demonstrated in human history. Monopolies end.

How many prototypes are built at full scale? Don't people usually start by building models and scale things up? I say if it works go build it. But I also have the same criticism of libertarians. Don't try to change a nation. Move to and change one town with a geographically organized political majority and lead by example. Inspire a county freedom works using your town as a working example. Inspire a state freedom works using free counties as working examples. Inspire a nation using free states as working examples.

I want to see a zeitgeist city work because I want to see who decides the definition of symbols such as proof, science, or evidence. Besides you don't need to control the whole word just to grow some food and meet basic human survival needs.

Ironically I think zeitgeisters have a better chance influencing people than liberty because all throughout human history people have demanded coercion to resolve disputes not freedom from coercion. That is a pretty big head start right there because if people think you have a good idea such as bombing brown people they are like... hell yes get those evil bastards.

 

[TIMB0B]

You probably shouldn't open the emergency door in a jet while flying...

Sure it happens...

This...happens?

 

[genanmer]

This...happens?

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4530657/

What is stopping zeitgeisters from building one of their proposed cities right now?

The city, due to the fact it would be local would have scarcity in one way or another. The current financial powers would very likely fight it tooth and nail. Also, if society falls apart around the city (monetary collapse) it will be mobbed. Stabilizing society, removing the current financial powers, raising awareness, and empowering people's ability to choose must come before a city is created.

This is why I believe TZM should support this group's activity more. The overall wealth of the general population will increase as the current financial powers weaken.

Zeitgeisters lead me to believe they think they can eliminate choice, or competition in self defense, by implementing a global system.

If this ever happened I would leave the system and fight it myself. TZM in fact needs more people looking at the proposed system with a skeptical and critical eye in order to prevent abuse.

How many prototypes are built at full scale? Don't people usually start by building models and scale things up? I say if it works go build it. But I also have the same criticism of libertarians. Don't try to change a nation. Move to and change one town with a geographically organized political majority and lead by example. Inspire a county freedom works using your town as a working example. Inspire a state freedom works using free counties as working examples. Inspire a nation using free states as working examples.

A RBE is based at a global level and since it is dependent on computers and cybernation it would make sense to test it through simulation software similar to the way NASA or the ESA run simulations. This is necessary to correct any errors in distribution before people are actually living within a demonstration city. So if 1000 errors occur it doesn't result in catastrophe.
Simple sustainable communities have already been proven to work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1cUa4yWQp4 (garbage warrior)

I want to see a zeitgeist city work because I want to see who decides the definition of symbols such as proof, science, or evidence. Besides you don't need to control the whole word just to grow some food and meet basic human survival needs.

Once a simulation is proven to be safe then a non-virtual test run can be created with a sample size of 10,000 people or so in a demonstration city. Direct feedback will be given from those living in it and it will likely draw plenty of attention/feedback from those not living within the test environment.

Ironically I think zeitgeisters have a better chance influencing people than liberty because all throughout human history people have demanded coercion to resolve disputes not freedom from coercion.

This again goes back to the twisted value systems which promote fleeting pleasures over the willingness to alleviate human suffering, Compassion.

 

[TIMB0B]

What is stopping zeitgeisters from building one of their proposed cities right now? Absolutely nothing. So go build one somewhere and prove it works. Since nature always has and always will be anarchy or a free market the only thing that can never be controlled is eliminating choice. Zeitgeisters lead me to believe they think they can eliminate choice, or competition in self defense, by implementing a global system. I think it is delusional to think one can eliminate choice from nature simply with a global monopoly. As has been repeatedly demonstrated in human history. Monopolies end.

How many prototypes are built at full scale? Don't people usually start by building models and scale things up? I say if it works go build it. But I also have the same criticism of libertarians. Don't try to change a nation. Move to and change one town with a geographically organized political majority and lead by example. Inspire a county freedom works using your town as a working example. Inspire a state freedom works using free counties as working examples. Inspire a nation using free states as working examples.

I want to see a zeitgeist city work because I want to see who decides the definition of symbols such as proof, science, or evidence. Besides you don't need to control the whole word just to grow some food and meet basic human survival needs.

Ironically I think zeitgeisters have a better chance influencing people than liberty because all throughout human history people have demanded coercion to resolve disputes not freedom from coercion. That is a pretty big head start right there because if people think you have a good idea such as bombing brown people they are like... hell yes get those evil bastards.

We already saw something similar. The Jim Jones movement. The machine told them to drink the kool-aid.

BTW, does TZM decide who gets to marry who?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The city, due to the fact it would be local would have scarcity in one way or another. The current financial powers would very likely fight it tooth and nail. Also, if society falls apart around the city (monetary collapse) it will be mobbed.

If this ever happened I would leave the system and fight it myself.

Don't you find any irony in those two comments? On one hand you say the only thing preventing TZM from building a city is they do not feel they can compete against other systems or compete in self defense and in the same breath you would lead a reader to believe competition is good.

I find myself unable to believe both comments reflect truth because the concept of not believing you can compete and competition is good are opposing views.

A RBE is based at a global level and since it is dependent on computers and cybernation it would make sense to test it through simulation software similar to the way NASA or the ESA run simulations. This is necessary to correct any errors in distribution before people are actually living within a demonstration city. So if 1000 errors occur it doesn't result in catastrophe.
Simple sustainable communities have already been proven to work.

Once a simulation is proven to be safe then a non-virtual test run can be created with a sample size of 10,000 people or so in a demonstration city. Direct feedback will be given from those living in it and it will likely draw plenty of attention/feedback from those not living within the test environment.

Again, if sustainable communities are already been proven to work go build one.

"We have run many successful computer simulations" is a weak sales pitch. Go build a city and out compete existing systems.

The only thing stopping you from doing this is you and your fears.

 

[Ninja Homer]

The biggest problem with the Zeitgeist movement is that it proposes an economic system based on science, but it completely ignores the science of economics.

What you should really be asking is, what happens when you restrict the market according to resources, need, and scientific evidence? Take a look at controlled drugs and the War on Drugs (including how much resources the War on Drugs wastes) and you should have your answer. Now imagine that every resource is controlled from the top down. It can't be done, it's absolutely impossible. You can never take the market out of the equation. When you restrict a resource, it just shifts it to a black market.

There are a lot of good ideas within Zeitgeist, but a top-down controlled resources based economy isn't one of them. What would be better is to use technology to offer tools that track and show the best way to use resources, and then allow a free market to use these tools to their advantage.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

What would be better is to use technology to offer tools that track and show the best way to use resources, and then allow a free market to use these tools to their advantage.

 

[axiomata]

The OP seems like he's got an open mind, if he also happens to have time I highly recommend Mises' Human Action.

Here's a taste:

As the interventionist sees things, the alternative is “automatic forces” or “conscious planning.” It is obvious, he implies, that to rely upon automatic processes is sheer stupidity. No reasonable man can seriously recommend doing nothing and letting things go as they do without interference on the part of purposive action. A plan, by the very fact that it is a display of conscious action, is incomparably superior to the absence of any planning. Laissez faire is said to mean: Let the evils last, do not try to improve the lot of mankind by reasonable action.

This is utterly fallacious talk. The argument advanced for planning is entirely derived from an impermissible interpretation of a metaphor. It has no foundation other than the connotations implied in the term “automatic” which it is customary to apply in a metaphorical sense for the description of the market process. Automatic, says the*Concise Oxford Dictionary, means “unconscious, unintelligent, merely mechanical.” Automatic, saysWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary, means “not subject to the control of the will, … performed without active thought and without conscious intention or direction.” What a triumph for the champion of planning to play this trump card!

The truth is that the alternative is not between a dead mechanism or a rigid automatism on one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not*automatism versus conscious action; it is*autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is*freedom versus government omnipotence.

Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce.

 

[genanmer]

Don't you find any irony in those two comments? On one hand you say the only thing preventing TZM from building a city is they do not feel they can compete against other systems or compete in self defense and in the same breath you would lead a reader to believe competition is good.

I find myself unable to believe both comments reflect truth because the concept of not believing you can compete and competition is good are opposing views.

Not necessarily, it's like saying I'm not at the level of a professional athlete (right now) but I look forward to playing against them in the future.

A city if built right now would be extremely vulnerable because of the current abuse of power.
In an environment/society with equal competition I personally believe it would come out on top, but again the proof must be shown.

If sustainable communities are already been proven to work go build one.

"We have run many successful computer simulations" is a weak sales pitch. Go build a city and out compete existing systems.

The only thing stopping you from doing this is you and your fears.

I'm realistic. TZM doesn't have the resources/support nor scientific evidence necessary to get a city with all the 'bells and whistles' up and running right now. They are however working on a city which will use several sustainable practices.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...na&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=233&id=319830

The primary concerns in creating this model would be sustainable food production, energy production, and housing. However, the intention behind creating such a model is to 'wait out' the inevitable monetary collapse and the believed chaos that will result which I would prefer not to happen.

This city/community's main function would only serve to test the basic theories. It would not have the automation technologies nor a supercomputer capable of distributing resources. Computer simulations are necessary to create a supercomputer capable of handling much of the automation which will make production even more efficient.

What would be better is to use technology to offer tools that track and show the best way to use resources, and then allow a free market to use these tools to their advantage.

Yes, I agree if the free market does in fact function as I believe it does.
I think TZM is leaning in this direction. Here's a thread based on meeting the (lack of) economic calculation problem.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...nena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=5&id=317351

It's really the misconceptions about TZM's goals and how a free market works that cause division between these two groups.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

A city if built right now would be extremely vulnerable because of the current abuse of power.

It would appear neither TZM or libertarians are immune from the same disease.... fear.

Many are afraid to compete in self defense unless they have a majority of force but eliminating choice thereby eliminating anyone from choosing to compete in self defense against you is impossible.

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."

Feel free to substitute the word "Patriot" for "TZM", "libertarian", or whatever label you want to insert.