Stefan, Peter successfully showed how your points are irrelevant. That is why it was not appropriate to respond to them. The question is not whether you can connect a resource based economy with Marxism. It simply doesn't matter how much connection there is between a resource based economy and Marxism because you're using labels.
To have a rational society, it must be made up of rational human beings. Both you and Peter know that the key to doing this is raising our children without the notions of violence and deprivation. Only when the language of hatred is forgotten can a TRULY sane society exist. Time for a revolution of consciousness.. ^.^
Stef i'm sorry but you are acting like a religious person. There is just no other way to describe you in this video. YOU did not listen to what Peter had to say. This is not communism, because money is abolished, and all "central planing" does is merely allocate proper resources to the world population. That's it! The physical needs- that is, food and water, will be given equally to every person on the planet, while the production will be automated and a track will be kept for all the resources.
@LeonDawson11 Have you seen the debate video? Your boss had no answer to the problem of calculation. How can you advocate a new economic system when you have no answer to efficiency?
@linkmaster667 No, dude, that was not PJ(my boss). His analogy of how to apply his resouces in a business type scenario is irrelevant to a resource based paradigm. As said, a central computer system will monitor available resouces and if a person, or group of person's want to pursue a passion project, that kind of thinking is encouraged and can easily be achieved through cooperative action.
the problems with capitalism and the free market are to big to be ignored and if we as a civilization expect to survive the next hundred years we will have to move into a system that at least resembles a resource based economy and far as him saying having no private property resembles marxism in a way yeah but our motive for getting rid of private property is an issue of efficiency while marx wanted to get rid of it because he thought it would be a way for capitalists to get back power
I think the FUNNIEST part of anarcho-communism is that they claim there is no government. LOL it's such an utter perversion of truth. The ENTIRE THING is a government.
@TimothyADonaghue Well how the fuck do you want smart allocation of resources to occur ? This does not act like an oppressive government. It just allocates the world's resources, to strategically meet the needs of every single human on the planet, and automating the production. YOU WILL BE FREE OF HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE ! And you call this communism ? Do not forget that communism keeps people in line, it destroys their individuality, this just takes care of everyone.
There is absolutely ZERO coercive force in a free anarchic society. Feel free to try to enlightenment me as to where there is any force involved. @beauxq
@TimothyADonaghue The language of private property is doublespeak. The term that's used is "exclusive rights". You have to recognize that "exclusive" is a grammatically negative word. It's not giving anyone rights, it's only about the idea of certain people (everyone except the owner) NOT having rights.
About examples 1 6:50 the zeitgiest has an good argument to opose ... they say that in those times there was no technology to enable the prosperity of citizens but now there is such kind of tech
I'd love to hear how your "wonderful" free market will solve the myriad of world problems. There is no profit in it thus nothing will change -- kids will continue to die every few seconds worldwide (that is the ultimate in violence).
@Laoch111: Your argument is founded on context dropping - either dishonestly or ignorantly claiming that profit is the only motivating factor to mutual and voluntary exchanges in a free market.
Charities exist. The fact that you care about the poor is proof that you and other like-minded will help the poor.
There is no moral high ground in petitioning the heavy hand of government to force people into giving. It's stealing and violence no matter how you want to cut it.
The "free market" doesn't solve anything. Individuals operating in their own self-interest does. Read Stefan's book Practical Anarchy for a step-by-step explanation and application into the various areas of life and society. Too great a task to do in Youtube comment box. @Laoch111
The only reason you are talking about free market, prices, economy, etc. is because of one thing: SCARCITY. We now have production capabilites that were non existant in the times of Marx, Von Mises, and many other philosophers/economists. We waste more than what we actually consume. We are simply living in a system that is unefficient in the use of resources, and the allocation of them. That wouldn't change in a laissez-faire system, there would always be excessive acummulation of goods.
There are also goods and services that are every day essential that do not rely on scarcity. Once again, you only mention profit motivation at the only factor in a free market, while ignoring the fact that people like you and myself exist - people who care about the poor.
In any system there would be excessive accumulation because a person will always have the potential to be greedy.
@Deadwind002 I dont agree that in any system a person will always have the potential to be greedy, well maybe in any system that we've ever known. I just want to point out that greed is an outcome of property, and property is an outcome of scarcity. I can name only two goods that are essential for our existance and are so abundant that is impossible to profit from them in a large scale: air and solar light. There is a reason why renewable energy sources do not get a lot of attention
@Deadwind002 And I don't think that a system that take care of their poor only by charity (the will of others) is just. Charity is not the solution, is just a paliative. As John Locke himself said, excessive acumulation of goods would be a problem in a laissez-faire economy. We now have virtually no scarcity of anything, the problem is that our system does not let our abundance to be well distributed. In a world where everyones is Ok, you will be Ok.
We waste more than we consume under a coercive, statist regime. Inside a free market capitalist system we will inevitably produce FAR MORE than we could ever consume. @giancarlo3000
I really believe Stef is the next step in terms of humanity and growth, and I feel Peter Joseph is the last after humanity is more self actualized. I really think someday in humanity's future we will have a true resource based economy. In my lifetime, I could see Stef's version paving the way for PJ.
aaah, I guess that scare-mongering like this is part of why PJ tends to not use the S word in his films. For communism to be successful it MUST be implemented on a global scale, as PJ suggests. None of the 'examples' in this video are examples of international socialism.
Zeitgeist isn't about economy. Try to get that. You can't attack pure socialism or communism etc. by saying it's economically flawed. Because having an economy is not the goal. Profit or economic growth is not the goal of socialism. Get that trough your head please. Pure socialism isn't about exchanging goods and services according to demand and supply between participants by barter or a medium of exchange with a credit or debit value.
I find it hilarious how all those failed centrally planned economies listed here, aren't actually defined in terms of labor. What the conjuring Sophist doesn't point out is how most of these manufacturing and agrarian dependent society's still used currency. What happens when society shifts to the service sector because of technology? What about all the irrelevant occupations generated by this system? You don't preach peace, you preach ancient dogma that rationalizes human suffering.
You better accept this realization, it's going to happen by design. Just like you're forced to pay your taxes, you're going to be forced to submit to this logical approach of sustainability and social organization. Your primitive mental approach to society is over. The mind poisoner Stefbot makes no logical, foundational argument what so ever. He's a scumbag who feeds of off the cultural value system disorder.
Zeitgeist is non-violent. Money does NOT accurately reflect resources. It skews the reflection of resources, creating scarcity where it otherwise would not exist. ZM is not a small group of elite controlling everything. You know better than that. ZM would due away with class, politics and leaders. Resource allocation is based on availability and consumer demand. It would not easily corrupt because there is no motivation built into the system, like there is in a monetary system.
I listened to Peter Joseph's response to this. He first accused Freedomain Radio (whose name he couldn't get right) of being aggressive, then went on to be very aggressive himself. Credit to Stefan for actually watching the response to the end (I didn't manage it), and coming back with another reply.
...will ALWAYS self-organize into a system of monopolies and cartels. On top of that your notion that labor, land, etc. have always been natural commodities and humans are born consumers is historically inaccurate rubbish.
Stefan, the fact that the best response you could come up with is essentially the old "it's never worked before" chestnut is incredibly weak. I was not a fan of Joseph before I watched his video response to your critique, but he absolutely schooled you buddy. So, Stefan, since we're judging proposed economic systems based on whether or not these systems have worked in the past, why don't you point us all to a historical example of a stateless free market paradise? The reality is capitalism...
We're going to have to have communal faith based currency before we start thinking about a resourced based economy. Some communities are already doing it. But going back to the gold standard will only limit us to the gold in circulation, and lets be real after the audit we won't find much in proportion to the population. The gold already in circulation only benefits the people in the know.
@mikejpete Oh..ook...i know what u are... a Zeitgeist drone..u think ur smart because u saw this documentary on how the world should be and now you regurgitate what was said in the documentary..U didn't come on this video now with a open mind to listen to this guy in video...U had ur mind already made up..Btw... Resourced based economy is communism with computers as Stefan said.. it obvious to any one who has a brain.. also gold has been the currency of the world for 6000 years..
@mikejpete What u must understand is that value comes from humans.. If enough of us feel wealthy when we have "gold"..then that becomes human currency..or it could be something of the 21st century like the Bit coins.. But this currency must have value and interest rates set by the free market and not a centralized bank and no one authority should have control of this currency.. again i come back to gold...
@mrfcukdevil I definitely agree about not centralizing money. That is key. There's a cool documentary about what some businesses and their communities are doing in other states to survive. The Money Fix - a Documentary for Monetary Reform
@mrfcukdevil That's right- no one should have control over the money supply, but wherever there are bad governments, there are banks. Governments collude with banks because banks are not restricted by constitutions. Without banks, governments can grow only so much, but with banks, a government's growth is unlimited, and with unlimited government there is unlimited corruption and violence.
@anatureperson Yes, that is why first i advocate a very small government...after which there should be NO government.. a voluntary society... its called anarco capitalism... Ron paul has been elected... Then comes the truly free society...
@mrfcukdevil The U.S. constitution is a government of 50 states. That's no small government ! We never really needed a government of 50 states. The word government means CITY, not 50 states. or even State. Government always meant local, but they've expanded the definition to include anywhere and everywhere!
@mrfcukdevil And now that you know what government means, do we need Ron Paul? No, we don't. We don't need a government of 50 states let alone a state government. When they wrote the constitution they created a corporation. Corporations are international. It pledges no allegiance to any locality. Any time you hear Obama use the words "United States of America," he's referring to the corporation. Those words have been printed on FRNs. Our money used to only say United States not USA.
@mikejpete money reflects the labour costs of getting/distributing those resources.
Until we can get people to work for free, or have machines that repair, program and build other machinnes price will be the best bet for making sense of all of the world's materials.
@GtheMVP No. We need to stop using resources too much in a non-sustainable way. Money, prices, all that is just a verbal hobby. It doesn't mean anything. Technological unemployment is a reality already and it will continue to grow. You say that we will need human labor in the future. Yes we will but no where near as much as we needed at the beginning of industrial revolution. And the population of the planet was a lot less than it is now. So we simply don't have enough jobs for everybody.
The disgust I feel for stefbot and all the other money grubbing defenders of this system is beyond description. I'm glad this rudimentary SOPHIST decided to ignore the arguments and keep up his smug little game. There's nothing "Anarcho" about the ZM, it's actually quite the opposite.
These traditionalized notions about historically condemned ideologies are pathetic tactics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's funny. The only way for Peter Joseph to spread his repacked but tired old ideas is to use websites like these that could only have come through capitalism.
@TigerbythetailFilms Most modern computer technology in the US is developed through state funded programs within institutions such as MIT and other universities. The internet is one example of this. The assertion that "technological advancement occurs because of capitalism" is provably false. The evidence suggests that in less competitive, more equal societies there is greater innovation and technological advancement... It looks like those "tired old ideas" are still relevant, sorry.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@InvertedFox What an incredible load of willful ignorance. It's especially ignorant because the one university you name is a private university! By all means, go to less capitalist countries and see how well they've done. How about the least capitalist, North Korea. That's going well what with the mass starvation. And Venezuela? It's really "progressing". Perhaps the soviet version of the internet. All this zeitgeist new-age marxist pap is good for is revealing how gullible twats like you are.
@TigerbythetailFilms And the namecalling helps you seem more credible? And comparing the Venus Project to North Korea is intellectually irresponsible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@mikejpete it's not ad hom if it's true bud. This zeitgeist crap is repackaged new-age marxism. If you're too ignorant to understand that, then what are you doing talking? What about North Korea? It IS the least capitalist country in the world, if you hate capitalism, try living there. Or try Venezuela if NK is too harsh for you.
@TigerbythetailFilms We've never had old age or new age "marxism" tried or implemented ever. You can't absolute everything. It's not like we're living in capitalism right now. We live in a rich only form of socialism. The paradigm of the Venus Project is akin to what Skynet would actually be like and not the Terminator fear mongering. The scientific method applied to society, not the individual will of a few human beings on the majority of labor or wage slaves.
@TigerbythetailFilms What do you know about living in North Korea? Apart from what you've heard from Fox News... Have you been there? Have you heard from anyone that lives there?
Who is going to be in charge of this super computer? and how do we insure that this person (or groups of persons) will not abuse their powers similar to what the elites are doing today? The Venus Project is a great idea if we can make it work. However, we need to address the issues that comes with it in order to convince people. Thoughts?
@AGuyWhoPunkUMama How is it a good idea? They'll never be able to tell what resources will be required.
There's no way you can tell me what I need/want to be content, just like no compter can tell me what I want/need, out side of water and basic nutrients.
No technology in the world can better detrmine what an individual needs better than that individual.
Price, atm, is the best indicator/tool for allocating resources. If TVP has something better, they should decribe it empirically.
@AGuyWhoPunkUMama The variables programmed into the central resource management system would be visible for all to see. If any abuse happens, it's visible for everyone to see and hence correct. Just as we have technicians who operate the water and electrical grids today, we would have computer programmers who implement these resource allocation algorithms in a statistical, peer-evaluated environment that monitors their actions.
@AGuyWhoPunkUMama I don't think you quite get the point dude. The powers of today aren't really "abusing" their powers.. they are living in a system based on scarcity and are therefore doing what they need to do to survive. As cynical as it sounds, I don't think concepts such as morality or justice should even be in the state or elitists vocab. In a system based on abundance, where people would have access to things and were actually looked after, why would this happen?
I think that the Venus Project would only be possible if human beings gained more resources to satisfy human needs. Perhaps if and when we are able to colonize other planets and use its resources would the Venus Project better serve us cuz as I see it at the moment, the Venus Project is incomplete. Also, Stefan brings up a good point in the corrupting aspects of power. How are we going to protect ourselves from the evils of human nature?
I.e. Peter suggested that his computer will determine caloric intake of humans and sufficiently allocate the food accordingly. but what if some human beings want more? in Peter's model, they would be out of luck since the computer has decided that they already had their share. Such an issue needs to be resolved before continuing on with the Venus Project: How do we account for individuals who need more food than the computer suggests as they would be a burden for the rest of the people.
I agree with certain points of both Peter and Stefan. Stefan's central claim is that it is not possible to efficiently allocate resources to individuals simply because resources are scarce. On the other hand, Peter claims that it does not matter if they are scarce simply because his super computer will determine the best way to allocate these resources that everyone will benefit from them.
He didn't have to show the slide because your question is "redundant" by its own design. Society isn't just going to jump into a resource based economy, abandoning the current model all together. The goal is to strategically build up to a society were the monetary system can be phased out over time.
I absolutely despise just about everything that comes out of your SOPHIST mouth.
LEARN TO APPLY TECHNOLOGY TO CENTRAL PLANNING AND STOP RELATING TO HISTORY. 2+2 will not equal 5, listen to what peter said. WHEN A RESOURCE IS LIMITED OR SCARCE....HYBRID ALLOYS AND BETTER UTILIZATION BECOMES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE UNDERSTANDING BUT YOU ARE MORE BLIND THAN A BAT, AT LEAST THAT CREATURE HAS A SENSE OF SONAR/RADAR. FOOL.
@mobildeath "LEARN TO APPLY TECHNOLOGY TO CENTRAL PLANNING"
In all honesty, and with no hostility, but please explain/elaborate on this?
If you can't back up that vague statement with empirical evidence, then I must question why, with your being scientifically friendly, you haven't grasped the economic calculation problem? It's about as empirical as it gets with regards to optimal resource allocation.
@GtheMVP You do not need a faster to compute simplicity firstly. And by central planning he stated starvation is a result, however my statement was simply to point out that starvation cannot occur when machines are the force of labor and not dependent on counter productive food producing monopolies like Monsanto. Stop thinking about simple things being major problems, food has not been a true issue for a very long time in technological development. Such questions and statements are nonsense.
@mobildeath You have not explained anything empirically.
Hate money all you want, but voluntary free trade amongst two individuals, using sound money to represent actual value of traded goods, is proven far superior, prosperity wise, to any mega cluster fuck of a bureaucracy/central institution dictating. U guys want to create the largest ever conceived
Freer markets have been proven time and time again, not perfect of course, but the best bet for everyone. We need to move closer to that
@GtheMVP The world is flat it is proven to be true, if you want to express the world is round then you are just plain wrong. every 5 or 6 seconds someone dies to starvation or curable disease because there was no profit in taking care of it. You are a man who was born and given glasses, these glasses have changed the way you see the world and rather than taking them off, you choose to believe without them you can not see, as you have been told. The monetary system had it's time...
@mobildeath WHat the hell you babbling about? The world can't be proven flat.
Let's stick with empirically sound beliefs here, which the Venus Porject is not.
TVP has no answer for the economic calculation problem, we can't stress how crucial that is.
I'm glad TVP mantra is volunteerism, so I respect that, however, you should be empirical too. You can't just say technology will solve things without demonstrating how
Economics is the most counter productive technological suppression tool ever developed, and if you want some solid proof here is a list of names that died poor and defeated by the monetary system who were some of the greatest inventors ever in history. Edwin Armstrong(Fm Radio ring a bell?), Nikola Tesla, Stanislaw Burzynski. Im sure the best solution economics could come up with was suppression, though that was far from the true best utilization.
@mobildeath My trading in a peaceful/voluntary way with anyone else, did not kill any of your aforrmentioned.
Economics is what occurs between two willing people in a voluntary exchange. EVen if your Venus Project becomes reality, people will still trade for goods, there's no way we can all have everything. People will want some currency to save from crarrying everything they own
Currency is just a means between trade, however, it's dangerous under monopolies. We need competing currencies
- If you don't want to belong to a RBE, don't join. Simple.
- A solution to our problems is not to perpetuate the system that creates them. Our current system leaves billions on the planet in poverty.
- TZM advocates a system of distributing resources without money. There is no private ownership because there is abundance. All your talk about anarcho-communism is irrelevant--it's a straw man argument. A RBE is a system of equity, harmony, and balance. No monetary system can compete
@Flashmusikal The only thing we should have to say toyour group is that you have no proof that you could actually distribute resources without the pice mechanism. Until that is proven, red flags should be flying for you.
DOn't forget, that witohut money, yo can't pay people to work, as TVP still relies primarily on manual labour. automation of your scale is a long way off, and even then, it will be longer until we can build robots that can repair, and build, not to mention program,other robts
@GtheMVP We already have the technology to do many things that the average human is not even aware of. Technology is going forward really fast and it would go even faster without all the problems that the monetary system and competition brings with them. But you can defend the system all you want, it is going down and it is going down fast. Doesn't need a genius to figure out that resources are running out, planet is overpopulated and we are still fighting each other.
@GtheMVP Thousands of years ago, humans managed to distribute resources without money or any form of barter when there was no concept of private property. Hunter/gatherers understood how to stay in balance. In a RBE, you don't pay people to work. A true RBE means complete automation, which is not as far off as you think. The world is already headed in this direction. The current system has no coping mechanism for the imbalance that will be created when unemployment on a large scale occurs.
The economic calculation problem (we're talking actual science here, something you guys pretend to embrace) does not apply to small clusters of people.
What's true automation either? Are we talking robots that can build and repair other robots, that will handle all forms of labour? No even Jaques is talking that ype of nonsense, he knos much labour will be required.
@TheRyantherenegade The price mechanism is our best proven tool for resource allocation, and free markets are our best means for mass prosperity, the empirical data doesn't lie.
You guys babble about science and the scientific method, yet you have no evidence for your RBE claims.
-The fact that there are no dissenting opinions in "Moving Forward" doesn't invalidate the information.
- Central planning in a monetary system has never worked. There are no examples of central planning in a non-monetary system to show, just as there are no examples of a true "free-market" economy for you to show.
- In a society predicated on sustainability, people's wants and values will be different i.e. not so complex as to be incalculable.
Hehe, He fails on so many levels. Always asking show me, show me. I don't even have to start debating any of his points since he can't show when any of the past models and systems he seems to advocate have worked. The answer is never. We need a new paradigm, a fresh way of thinking. Yes we might make mistakes, and yes we might fall. But we have to try again. ZM and VP at least have new ideas, Not some stale and old ones like Steph and Chomksy seem to have.
@MrSupercluste lol, wanting to take away the monopoly on force, theft and violence from the gov't is a stale idea? History/empirical evidence clearly shows humans at their most prosperous when markets are their freest and government is at its weakest.
If the TVP is supposed to operate using the scientific method, you better have some verifiable/reproduceable results to prove you can build a society without the price mechanism. Central planning always fails horribly, history isn't lying here
@GtheMVP History shows no such thing. The society we have today works i'll give you that, then again raping children also works but it doesn't mean we should accept it as the way it is. Our whole existence is based on competition but it doesn't need to be so... Douglas P. Fry debunks the idea that war and conflict is ancient and inevitable and that there is an inborn instinct of aggression in humans. So maybe there is a better way?
@MrSupercluster You look at the most prosperous moments in any civiclization, and it is always a result of freer markets. China nd India have seen hundreds of millions escaping poverty due to freer markrts, whilethe nanny state in the west tumbles into depression, poverty etc...
Our society (West) doesn't work, I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating the present. We have a giant parasitic state stealing wealth and giving it to their cronies, or bribing tax payers with it.
About being "forced" into a system. If I say "play my game or i'll shoot you" I'm forcing, yet you don't realise the same use of force in "if you don't play my game you'll starve". It is the same: there is a liability at stake which is you're well being and if you do not do it you suffer. So people are indeed Forced to use money and enter in the society
There are numerous mechanisms that are key for RBE that are not for marxism. But there is a key similarity in both: the aim to social system that is abundant, equal and fair.
The problem is the american culture indoctrinates its citizens to see marxism as the boogy man that is why you just say "It's marxism" without elaborating, because marxism is the representation of evil. You need to get over those labels to form a critical criticism and actually understand a RBE and check its validity
About Marxism you are oversimplifying. Because a RBE and marxism have one thing in common that doesn't make them "sister systems" so to speak here is an example:
Marxism and Capitalism have currency systems, political structures of government, financial institutions, judicial systems... Does this make Capitalism and Marxism the same or alike?
You cannot make the extrapollation of claiming a system is a version of the other just because it contains a characteristic that is central in the first.
3. You also speak of certain problems that computers can't solve, indeed true.
Finding the reproducing sequences in pi wouldn't be possible p.e. but that is an unsolvable problem in a mathematical context not a managment one, so please give me an example of one of this unsolvable problems in a resource managment and distribution sense because I can't see any.
3. You claim that the preferences, consumption rates etc... of the world can't be calculated, could you support this view with evidence? I don't know how much calculations would be envolved in calculating the world's consumption rates etc... but based on the calculating capacity of current super computers which is 8.2 quatrillion calculations per second(1 quatrillion=1000 billions)I'm ready to believe that that is possible.
And remember that on a 2 year average a faster super computer is created
2. (continuing) Politics, unlike computers, cannot be programmed to rigidly follow their objective: to serve the people. It is because they are human that they fail, they do not have the managment capacity and they do not respect their purpose as politics. Think of it as automation of politics in order to have better most efficient politics the same way the industrial revolution created better most efficient products.
2. (continuing)When you refer to Communism you refer to a system than has nothing to do with a RBE for Communism is ruled by a humans who failed given the poverty and etc...in communist countries. RBE is managed by a computer that is at the frontline of current processing capacity in order to, having all factors into account, do what it is programmed to do: distribute resources abundantly and efficiently. (continues)
The dissent evidence (the movie presents "opinions" of scientists, philosophers etc... based on evidence from study and research some of those displayed in the film) must come from those who have reasons to disagree with the evidence presented obviously, if I agree with the idea is because I don't have enough dissent evidence if you do then present them,
2. We cannot give you any historical evidence than a RBE has ever worked for it has never been implemented. (continues)
About the holes I'll just add : remember how scientific relativism works: no theory is ever right for relativism accepts that there the only absolute is change so you can never be absolutely right of anything. So the best theoryis the one with less holes, but all of them hav'em. And I think the monetary system as many more than a RBE (p.e. billions of starving people)
Hello, thank you for the constructive criticism that is what the movement needs in order to revise and reassure its ideas. I'm not Peter Joseph but maybe you'll consider my answer as well.
1. The movement/movie advocates an idea that is complex so the movie as to focus on presenting it as detailed and clearly with as much evidence as possible. The idea advocated is not perfect and has holes indeed but the movie cannot cover that for it is too long and would decrease the credibility of the idea
Then you have a ridiculously large population, and you should slow down. Touch Screen Phone: You can cover the worlds surface in glass, likewise with any other component in the phone. Adv. Tech always leads smaller resource consumption. Comp. used to take up entire offices. No Companies in an RBE. And Everyone has access to the latest tech. because the latest tech is about LESS resource consumption. Watch some Fresco Lectures, and Z Lectures, getting tired of answering the same questions.
Stefan, I appreciate the fact that you kept your ego out of this response and didn't laugh at or belittle Peter or his ideas and there was more substance as well.
@niinja2 There are enough resources so everyone can have a good phone. The manufacture of goods in an RBE is done by the production system, it is a variable production system (meaning customization is possible) the Idea is not that some corporation keep selling new phones to you every year, (hence disrespecting energy involved) but the phones having the longest life technically possible at that time. In the not too distant future we may have chips in our necks allowing sub-vocal communication.
"There are enough resources so everyone can have a good phone. "
what happens if there is not enough of resources for all of the people to have some "thing"
"the Idea is not that some corporation keep selling new phones to you every year"
yeah but when company develops a new iphone, not everybody will have it in RBE, if anyone, what is the point of developing new technology when you cant even use it. technology advancement will slow down.
its hard for me to understand how cant you see he problem, like you say we will never have a choice in picking the stuff we want? Thats just silly.
sometimes you will have a choice, you and 20 other people, what happens when all of you chose things that are scarce, based on what algorithm do you distribute it?
your answer to this question so far is basically nobody gets it...
"statement is again an assumption that there is going to be an opinion here"
you sare saying you will never have an option, sometimes there will be an option
i think everybody should have a computer in this new world. Resources for making everybody the same computer are scarce, how do you decide "who gets what" if needs do not meet desires of the people?
Desires and preferences of billions of people aren't unique to the individual. Mass media, social programming and advertising actually spoon feed the populace it's likes and dislikes via trends, fads. There are exceptions of course. However very few people think critically and make their own choices and conclusions. At some level even the most discerning people are influenced from another source
you assume we will always be able to replace a resource x with resource y
this is wrong
there will be a time when some resource x will become scarce no matter what efficiency or planing you use, its simply not infinite.
how do you decide who gets it, you must have some kind of points or credits assigned to each person and how much a person is willing to pay for it will determine who gets it....
there is no problem with my assumption, you can try to place more variables but it all comes down to the same thing, how do you decide what is more important? how do you decide what gets what if the resources get skinny?
It needs to be GLOBAL. That's why previous attempts at central planning didn't work..... You seem like a smart guy, I don't get why you can't grasp the core concept....
...are a menace. Want some examples? Monsanto and its GMO's, BP and it's oil splits, tabaco companies hiding studies about cancer, bottled water companies... and many many others.. getting away without any consequences... Please check the information available.
I like very much your videos with that idea of statism and the life stock but I don't agree with your points of view on deregulation of markets. Do you know what Mafia is? Do you know how things work in Sicily?
Stefan, Corporations (the big majority) are private propriety. And we all live under corporatism. Governments work not for the interest of small business but for the interest of monopolistic businesses with a corporative model. Banks some public, but the majority private are corporations. Many people work for corporations. With a money economy, monopoly of one corporation worldwide is inevitable with or without a regulated market, existing or not existing governments. Corporations unregulated...
Did these societies that have tried a non-currency system exist in a bubble? They were, as far as I know, surrounded by a world using a monetary system and subject to its effects and consequences. Moreover, the governing party and its citizens were all raised and educated in a corrupt world where money controlled and ruled everything. Wouldn't you agree that things would be different if nations made these simultaneously and societal education and conciousness was raised first?
Man, you keep repeating the same crap of misrepresenting the Zeitgeist movement solutions. For example - the ruling of the small elite - PLEASE, FIND ME A QUOTE WHERE PJ SAYS THERE WOULD BE SUCH THING.
I don`t know which one of you both is right and who is wrong but you keep missing PJs points either on purpose or because you are unable to understand them or because of ego driven reason.
"PLEASE, FIND ME A QUOTE WHERE PJ SAYS THERE WOULD BE SUCH THING."
the 3 % that service the computer
or the computer itself, which is btw programed by the people
i dunno which is worse, would you really want that the computer which was made by humans to determine what you need and ignore the desires you want determine what are you going to have
and just because you say the magic word SCIENCE , no it does not make it full proof.
@niinja2, magic words? The word "elite" is definitely misrepresentation done purposely. Why is it so hard to grasp for a guy claiming of being software engineer the concept of databases containing information based on empirical observation? Unfortunately, in reality you can`t have whatever you want if there aren`t enough resources and U must adapt to the environment, not the other way around.
When you go to a doctor a scientific medical elite dictates what kind of medicine treatment you have to
its hard to grasp it since nobody presented how this resource will be allocated if it is scarce
how do you measure someones desire compared to other desires?
"a scientific medical elite dictates what kind of medicine treatment you have to"
my mother died of cancer, but she also fought a battle with moron doctors that would let her die because of resource allocation or laziness in general, she lived 7 years withe the disease
@niinja2 how isnt strategic access (based on sharing) more efficient than copying the same goods for everyone especially if they are not using them the whole time? If a resource is scarce you can`t make it abundant with some paper. (not to mention the constant search for alternatives, which will have incentive).
About desires - much of the desires are artificially made through advertising, since the human survival should be top priority, the hell with you desires if your basic survival needs are
not met. Your last example (I`m sorry about your tragedy) is showing the current monetary oriented medical establishment faults. I`m yet to see example how freemarket would be superior than RBE since the incentive will still be monetary. Are we talking about a resource allocation + the artificially enlarged price for profit, or not?
Is your point proving that all the doctors are evil and their methods arent working?
Isnt the current system spending vast amount of money on stupid military oper
Stefan, Peter successfully showed how your points are irrelevant. That is why it was not appropriate to respond to them. The question is not whether you can connect a resource based economy with Marxism. It simply doesn't matter how much connection there is between a resource based economy and Marxism because you're using labels.
beauxq 9 hours ago
To have a rational society, it must be made up of rational human beings. Both you and Peter know that the key to doing this is raising our children without the notions of violence and deprivation. Only when the language of hatred is forgotten can a TRULY sane society exist. Time for a revolution of consciousness.. ^.^
TerribleFan 4 days ago
Stef i'm sorry but you are acting like a religious person. There is just no other way to describe you in this video. YOU did not listen to what Peter had to say. This is not communism, because money is abolished, and all "central planing" does is merely allocate proper resources to the world population. That's it! The physical needs- that is, food and water, will be given equally to every person on the planet, while the production will be automated and a track will be kept for all the resources.
Yamakoto120 1 week ago
Peter, please destroy this idiot again.
LeonDawson11 2 weeks ago
@LeonDawson11 Have you seen the debate video? Your boss had no answer to the problem of calculation. How can you advocate a new economic system when you have no answer to efficiency?
linkmaster667 2 weeks ago
@linkmaster667 No, dude, that was not PJ(my boss). His analogy of how to apply his resouces in a business type scenario is irrelevant to a resource based paradigm. As said, a central computer system will monitor available resouces and if a person, or group of person's want to pursue a passion project, that kind of thinking is encouraged and can easily be achieved through cooperative action.
LeonDawson11 1 week ago
the problems with capitalism and the free market are to big to be ignored and if we as a civilization expect to survive the next hundred years we will have to move into a system that at least resembles a resource based economy and far as him saying having no private property resembles marxism in a way yeah but our motive for getting rid of private property is an issue of efficiency while marx wanted to get rid of it because he thought it would be a way for capitalists to get back power
ilovebewbz101 2 weeks ago
I think the FUNNIEST part of anarcho-communism is that they claim there is no government. LOL it's such an utter perversion of truth. The ENTIRE THING is a government.
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago 4
@TimothyADonaghue Well how the fuck do you want smart allocation of resources to occur ? This does not act like an oppressive government. It just allocates the world's resources, to strategically meet the needs of every single human on the planet, and automating the production. YOU WILL BE FREE OF HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE ! And you call this communism ? Do not forget that communism keeps people in line, it destroys their individuality, this just takes care of everyone.
Yamakoto120 1 week ago
Comment removed
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
Private property is the initiation of force.
beauxq 1 month ago
There is absolutely ZERO coercive force in a free anarchic society. Feel free to try to enlightenment me as to where there is any force involved. @beauxq
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
@TimothyADonaghue The language of private property is doublespeak. The term that's used is "exclusive rights". You have to recognize that "exclusive" is a grammatically negative word. It's not giving anyone rights, it's only about the idea of certain people (everyone except the owner) NOT having rights.
beauxq 1 month ago
About examples 1 6:50 the zeitgiest has an good argument to opose ... they say that in those times there was no technology to enable the prosperity of citizens but now there is such kind of tech
onxiaftw 1 month ago
I'd love to hear how your "wonderful" free market will solve the myriad of world problems. There is no profit in it thus nothing will change -- kids will continue to die every few seconds worldwide (that is the ultimate in violence).
Laoch111 1 month ago
@Laoch111: Your argument is founded on context dropping - either dishonestly or ignorantly claiming that profit is the only motivating factor to mutual and voluntary exchanges in a free market.
Charities exist. The fact that you care about the poor is proof that you and other like-minded will help the poor.
There is no moral high ground in petitioning the heavy hand of government to force people into giving. It's stealing and violence no matter how you want to cut it.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
The "free market" doesn't solve anything. Individuals operating in their own self-interest does. Read Stefan's book Practical Anarchy for a step-by-step explanation and application into the various areas of life and society. Too great a task to do in Youtube comment box. @Laoch111
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
The only reason you are talking about free market, prices, economy, etc. is because of one thing: SCARCITY. We now have production capabilites that were non existant in the times of Marx, Von Mises, and many other philosophers/economists. We waste more than what we actually consume. We are simply living in a system that is unefficient in the use of resources, and the allocation of them. That wouldn't change in a laissez-faire system, there would always be excessive acummulation of goods.
giancarlo3000 1 month ago
@giancarlo3000: You're silly.
There are also goods and services that are every day essential that do not rely on scarcity. Once again, you only mention profit motivation at the only factor in a free market, while ignoring the fact that people like you and myself exist - people who care about the poor.
In any system there would be excessive accumulation because a person will always have the potential to be greedy.
Deadwind002 1 month ago
@Deadwind002 I dont agree that in any system a person will always have the potential to be greedy, well maybe in any system that we've ever known. I just want to point out that greed is an outcome of property, and property is an outcome of scarcity. I can name only two goods that are essential for our existance and are so abundant that is impossible to profit from them in a large scale: air and solar light. There is a reason why renewable energy sources do not get a lot of attention
giancarlo3000 1 month ago
@Deadwind002 And I don't think that a system that take care of their poor only by charity (the will of others) is just. Charity is not the solution, is just a paliative. As John Locke himself said, excessive acumulation of goods would be a problem in a laissez-faire economy. We now have virtually no scarcity of anything, the problem is that our system does not let our abundance to be well distributed. In a world where everyones is Ok, you will be Ok.
giancarlo3000 1 month ago
We waste more than we consume under a coercive, statist regime. Inside a free market capitalist system we will inevitably produce FAR MORE than we could ever consume. @giancarlo3000
TimothyADonaghue 1 month ago
I'd like to see Stefbot review the new "Thrive" movie, I really like that one :)
spystyle 1 month ago
Absolutely AMAZING :)
I was thoroughly duped by well meaning Marxists - they really had me LOL
Now I see a truly free market is the ticket :)
spystyle 1 month ago
I really believe Stef is the next step in terms of humanity and growth, and I feel Peter Joseph is the last after humanity is more self actualized. I really think someday in humanity's future we will have a true resource based economy. In my lifetime, I could see Stef's version paving the way for PJ.
CubanInfinity 1 month ago
aaah, I guess that scare-mongering like this is part of why PJ tends to not use the S word in his films. For communism to be successful it MUST be implemented on a global scale, as PJ suggests. None of the 'examples' in this video are examples of international socialism.
'Thats not opinion, thats just FACTS'! :)
MirrorSymmetry 1 month ago
It's incredible how zeitgeisters have no single fucking clue about economics.
godofreudson 2 months ago
@godofreudson
Zeitgeist isn't about economy. Try to get that. You can't attack pure socialism or communism etc. by saying it's economically flawed. Because having an economy is not the goal. Profit or economic growth is not the goal of socialism. Get that trough your head please. Pure socialism isn't about exchanging goods and services according to demand and supply between participants by barter or a medium of exchange with a credit or debit value.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Of course I can. If the goal involves some degree of prosperity, flawed economics are fatal to your project.
godofreudson 1 month ago
ruled by a small elite were did you get that???? only in your mind
boldman01 2 months ago
I find it hilarious how all those failed centrally planned economies listed here, aren't actually defined in terms of labor. What the conjuring Sophist doesn't point out is how most of these manufacturing and agrarian dependent society's still used currency. What happens when society shifts to the service sector because of technology? What about all the irrelevant occupations generated by this system? You don't preach peace, you preach ancient dogma that rationalizes human suffering.
MattSyTy 2 months ago
To all the violent monetary system anarchists.
You better accept this realization, it's going to happen by design. Just like you're forced to pay your taxes, you're going to be forced to submit to this logical approach of sustainability and social organization. Your primitive mental approach to society is over. The mind poisoner Stefbot makes no logical, foundational argument what so ever. He's a scumbag who feeds of off the cultural value system disorder.
VIOLENT ANARCHIST SCUM.
MattSyTy 2 months ago
RBE is not socialism... so another wrong there...
stuk90 2 months ago
yea and the Kibuz in Israel was pretty much successful ...
it didn't produce wealth... so it needed a steady money flow from the country...
but yea we are not talking about central planning... its open source planning...
stuk90 2 months ago
the zeitgeist movement is non violent movement... the basis of this ideas is making wealth for every body so nobody will need to use violence...
stuk90 2 months ago
so many people "under the influence"... it`s pretty scary
tinyurl dot com /peterjoseph
Psicloone 2 months ago
The fact alone that PJ hasn`t once made face to face discussion on record with a real economist is pretty revealing.
5m1nutes 2 months ago
Quote:"Plan economy HAS never worked." - agree.
"Neither has market economy. " - where do those people get those ideas from?
5m1nutes 2 months ago
Zeitgeist is non-violent. Money does NOT accurately reflect resources. It skews the reflection of resources, creating scarcity where it otherwise would not exist. ZM is not a small group of elite controlling everything. You know better than that. ZM would due away with class, politics and leaders. Resource allocation is based on availability and consumer demand. It would not easily corrupt because there is no motivation built into the system, like there is in a monetary system.
goldstockbull 2 months ago
Sorry Stefan, you don't even understand what you're trying to debunk.
Super computer won't control resources, it'll monitor them;
Ruled by a small elite? Wrong;
True central global planning has never existed in the world;
Anarcho communism along with all other isms, including capitalism, never assumed a finite planet, maybe in theory, not in practice;
What we're doing isn't exactly a success, and total free market, never happened, so maybe that's even more utopian?
At least you quit sarcasm..
TheDarkFenix 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarkFenix
Pelo jeito vc ja conhecia o cara antes d`eu te mandar o link huahuahuahuahuahua...
Mas qualquer hora dessas eu provo que vc ta errada :)
(pare de defender o peter joseph, ele é uma versão moderna do camarada Stalin)
paunocu666 3 months ago
Comment removed
Deeno888 3 months ago
I listened to Peter Joseph's response to this. He first accused Freedomain Radio (whose name he couldn't get right) of being aggressive, then went on to be very aggressive himself. Credit to Stefan for actually watching the response to the end (I didn't manage it), and coming back with another reply.
luckhurstrobert 3 months ago 2
...will ALWAYS self-organize into a system of monopolies and cartels. On top of that your notion that labor, land, etc. have always been natural commodities and humans are born consumers is historically inaccurate rubbish.
PremiumOnlineWriting 4 months ago
Stefan, the fact that the best response you could come up with is essentially the old "it's never worked before" chestnut is incredibly weak. I was not a fan of Joseph before I watched his video response to your critique, but he absolutely schooled you buddy. So, Stefan, since we're judging proposed economic systems based on whether or not these systems have worked in the past, why don't you point us all to a historical example of a stateless free market paradise? The reality is capitalism...
PremiumOnlineWriting 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TZM is nothing more than an Environmentalist Dictatorship.
marcdaddy33 4 months ago
It wouldn't be a small elite, it would be the non-propagandized version of Skynet.
mikejpete 5 months ago 10
Money does not reflect resources -.-
mikejpete 5 months ago 17
@mikejpete yeah.. it does.. if its backed by something of value to all and is represented by paper..ie something like the gold standard..
mrfcukdevil 4 months ago
@mrfcukdevil can you eat gold, can it power anything? Or is it just shiny?
mikejpete 4 months ago
We're going to have to have communal faith based currency before we start thinking about a resourced based economy. Some communities are already doing it. But going back to the gold standard will only limit us to the gold in circulation, and lets be real after the audit we won't find much in proportion to the population. The gold already in circulation only benefits the people in the know.
mikejpete 4 months ago
@mikejpete Oh..ook...i know what u are... a Zeitgeist drone..u think ur smart because u saw this documentary on how the world should be and now you regurgitate what was said in the documentary..U didn't come on this video now with a open mind to listen to this guy in video...U had ur mind already made up..Btw... Resourced based economy is communism with computers as Stefan said.. it obvious to any one who has a brain.. also gold has been the currency of the world for 6000 years..
mrfcukdevil 4 months ago
@mikejpete What u must understand is that value comes from humans.. If enough of us feel wealthy when we have "gold"..then that becomes human currency..or it could be something of the 21st century like the Bit coins.. But this currency must have value and interest rates set by the free market and not a centralized bank and no one authority should have control of this currency.. again i come back to gold...
mrfcukdevil 4 months ago
@mrfcukdevil I definitely agree about not centralizing money. That is key. There's a cool documentary about what some businesses and their communities are doing in other states to survive. The Money Fix - a Documentary for Monetary Reform
mikejpete 4 months ago
@mrfcukdevil That's right- no one should have control over the money supply, but wherever there are bad governments, there are banks. Governments collude with banks because banks are not restricted by constitutions. Without banks, governments can grow only so much, but with banks, a government's growth is unlimited, and with unlimited government there is unlimited corruption and violence.
anatureperson 4 months ago
@anatureperson Yes, that is why first i advocate a very small government...after which there should be NO government.. a voluntary society... its called anarco capitalism... Ron paul has been elected... Then comes the truly free society...
mrfcukdevil 4 months ago
@mrfcukdevil The U.S. constitution is a government of 50 states. That's no small government ! We never really needed a government of 50 states. The word government means CITY, not 50 states. or even State. Government always meant local, but they've expanded the definition to include anywhere and everywhere!
anatureperson 4 months ago
@mrfcukdevil And now that you know what government means, do we need Ron Paul? No, we don't. We don't need a government of 50 states let alone a state government. When they wrote the constitution they created a corporation. Corporations are international. It pledges no allegiance to any locality. Any time you hear Obama use the words "United States of America," he's referring to the corporation. Those words have been printed on FRNs. Our money used to only say United States not USA.
anatureperson 4 months ago
@mrfcukdevil "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to ever be a child." Cicero, 43 BC
anatureperson 4 months ago
@mikejpete money reflects the labour costs of getting/distributing those resources.
Until we can get people to work for free, or have machines that repair, program and build other machinnes price will be the best bet for making sense of all of the world's materials.
GtheMVP 3 months ago
@GtheMVP No. We need to stop using resources too much in a non-sustainable way. Money, prices, all that is just a verbal hobby. It doesn't mean anything. Technological unemployment is a reality already and it will continue to grow. You say that we will need human labor in the future. Yes we will but no where near as much as we needed at the beginning of industrial revolution. And the population of the planet was a lot less than it is now. So we simply don't have enough jobs for everybody.
MrSupercluster 3 months ago
@mikejpete Price is what allows us to efficiently allocate resources.
YaHuWaHservant 1 week ago
The disgust I feel for stefbot and all the other money grubbing defenders of this system is beyond description. I'm glad this rudimentary SOPHIST decided to ignore the arguments and keep up his smug little game. There's nothing "Anarcho" about the ZM, it's actually quite the opposite.
These traditionalized notions about historically condemned ideologies are pathetic tactics.
FUCK YOU STEFBOT AND FUCK PRIVATE PROPERTY.
MattSyTy 5 months ago
Yes. Plan economy HAS never worked. Neither has market economy. 4 august last year we officially use more then the earth re-produces.
Ok, so maybe that works better right now. But I would rather stick to something that works for a long time.
Btw, to all bashers. Can you actually name on socialist state that has been run the way Peter Joseph is talking about?
gulbirk 5 months ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's funny. The only way for Peter Joseph to spread his repacked but tired old ideas is to use websites like these that could only have come through capitalism.
TigerbythetailFilms 5 months ago
@TigerbythetailFilms Most modern computer technology in the US is developed through state funded programs within institutions such as MIT and other universities. The internet is one example of this. The assertion that "technological advancement occurs because of capitalism" is provably false. The evidence suggests that in less competitive, more equal societies there is greater innovation and technological advancement... It looks like those "tired old ideas" are still relevant, sorry.
InvertedFox 5 months ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@InvertedFox What an incredible load of willful ignorance. It's especially ignorant because the one university you name is a private university! By all means, go to less capitalist countries and see how well they've done. How about the least capitalist, North Korea. That's going well what with the mass starvation. And Venezuela? It's really "progressing". Perhaps the soviet version of the internet. All this zeitgeist new-age marxist pap is good for is revealing how gullible twats like you are.
TigerbythetailFilms 5 months ago
@TigerbythetailFilms And the namecalling helps you seem more credible? And comparing the Venus Project to North Korea is intellectually irresponsible.
mikejpete 5 months ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@mikejpete it's not ad hom if it's true bud. This zeitgeist crap is repackaged new-age marxism. If you're too ignorant to understand that, then what are you doing talking? What about North Korea? It IS the least capitalist country in the world, if you hate capitalism, try living there. Or try Venezuela if NK is too harsh for you.
TigerbythetailFilms 5 months ago
@TigerbythetailFilms We've never had old age or new age "marxism" tried or implemented ever. You can't absolute everything. It's not like we're living in capitalism right now. We live in a rich only form of socialism. The paradigm of the Venus Project is akin to what Skynet would actually be like and not the Terminator fear mongering. The scientific method applied to society, not the individual will of a few human beings on the majority of labor or wage slaves.
mikejpete 5 months ago 12
@TigerbythetailFilms What do you know about living in North Korea? Apart from what you've heard from Fox News... Have you been there? Have you heard from anyone that lives there?
arthurguitar 4 months ago
@mikejpete He didn't say that the Venus Project intended to mimic North Korea, but rather that money-less societies tend to lead to similar outcomes.
MabusZero 1 month ago
this guy is Jurassic, WHF! he does not know shit none about technology.
sandocks 5 months ago
Comment removed
sandocks 5 months ago
Just hear the ending... HTF would that happen, people would magically become virtuous and stop being thirsty for more and more cash, this is insane.
Psicloone 5 months ago
Lets focus on what isn't working right now. And that peters idea is quite achievable, your simply nit picking.
tyronelol 6 months ago
No, just no.
tyronelol 6 months ago
If there has never been a "true free market" than how can you assume there was ever a true example of a central planning society?
jwallguitar 6 months ago
Who is going to be in charge of this super computer? and how do we insure that this person (or groups of persons) will not abuse their powers similar to what the elites are doing today? The Venus Project is a great idea if we can make it work. However, we need to address the issues that comes with it in order to convince people. Thoughts?
AGuyWhoPunkUMama 6 months ago
@AGuyWhoPunkUMama How is it a good idea? They'll never be able to tell what resources will be required.
There's no way you can tell me what I need/want to be content, just like no compter can tell me what I want/need, out side of water and basic nutrients.
No technology in the world can better detrmine what an individual needs better than that individual.
Price, atm, is the best indicator/tool for allocating resources. If TVP has something better, they should decribe it empirically.
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@AGuyWhoPunkUMama The variables programmed into the central resource management system would be visible for all to see. If any abuse happens, it's visible for everyone to see and hence correct. Just as we have technicians who operate the water and electrical grids today, we would have computer programmers who implement these resource allocation algorithms in a statistical, peer-evaluated environment that monitors their actions.
MattSyTy 6 months ago
@AGuyWhoPunkUMama I don't think you quite get the point dude. The powers of today aren't really "abusing" their powers.. they are living in a system based on scarcity and are therefore doing what they need to do to survive. As cynical as it sounds, I don't think concepts such as morality or justice should even be in the state or elitists vocab. In a system based on abundance, where people would have access to things and were actually looked after, why would this happen?
aiiiunluckykid 1 month ago
I think that the Venus Project would only be possible if human beings gained more resources to satisfy human needs. Perhaps if and when we are able to colonize other planets and use its resources would the Venus Project better serve us cuz as I see it at the moment, the Venus Project is incomplete. Also, Stefan brings up a good point in the corrupting aspects of power. How are we going to protect ourselves from the evils of human nature?
AGuyWhoPunkUMama 6 months ago
I.e. Peter suggested that his computer will determine caloric intake of humans and sufficiently allocate the food accordingly. but what if some human beings want more? in Peter's model, they would be out of luck since the computer has decided that they already had their share. Such an issue needs to be resolved before continuing on with the Venus Project: How do we account for individuals who need more food than the computer suggests as they would be a burden for the rest of the people.
AGuyWhoPunkUMama 6 months ago
I agree with certain points of both Peter and Stefan. Stefan's central claim is that it is not possible to efficiently allocate resources to individuals simply because resources are scarce. On the other hand, Peter claims that it does not matter if they are scarce simply because his super computer will determine the best way to allocate these resources that everyone will benefit from them.
AGuyWhoPunkUMama 6 months ago
He didn't have to show the slide because your question is "redundant" by its own design. Society isn't just going to jump into a resource based economy, abandoning the current model all together. The goal is to strategically build up to a society were the monetary system can be phased out over time.
I absolutely despise just about everything that comes out of your SOPHIST mouth.
MattSyTy 6 months ago
LEARN TO APPLY TECHNOLOGY TO CENTRAL PLANNING AND STOP RELATING TO HISTORY. 2+2 will not equal 5, listen to what peter said. WHEN A RESOURCE IS LIMITED OR SCARCE....HYBRID ALLOYS AND BETTER UTILIZATION BECOMES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE UNDERSTANDING BUT YOU ARE MORE BLIND THAN A BAT, AT LEAST THAT CREATURE HAS A SENSE OF SONAR/RADAR. FOOL.
mobildeath 6 months ago
@mobildeath "LEARN TO APPLY TECHNOLOGY TO CENTRAL PLANNING"
In all honesty, and with no hostility, but please explain/elaborate on this?
If you can't back up that vague statement with empirical evidence, then I must question why, with your being scientifically friendly, you haven't grasped the economic calculation problem? It's about as empirical as it gets with regards to optimal resource allocation.
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@GtheMVP You do not need a faster to compute simplicity firstly. And by central planning he stated starvation is a result, however my statement was simply to point out that starvation cannot occur when machines are the force of labor and not dependent on counter productive food producing monopolies like Monsanto. Stop thinking about simple things being major problems, food has not been a true issue for a very long time in technological development. Such questions and statements are nonsense.
mobildeath 6 months ago
@mobildeath You have not explained anything empirically.
Hate money all you want, but voluntary free trade amongst two individuals, using sound money to represent actual value of traded goods, is proven far superior, prosperity wise, to any mega cluster fuck of a bureaucracy/central institution dictating. U guys want to create the largest ever conceived
Freer markets have been proven time and time again, not perfect of course, but the best bet for everyone. We need to move closer to that
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@GtheMVP The world is flat it is proven to be true, if you want to express the world is round then you are just plain wrong. every 5 or 6 seconds someone dies to starvation or curable disease because there was no profit in taking care of it. You are a man who was born and given glasses, these glasses have changed the way you see the world and rather than taking them off, you choose to believe without them you can not see, as you have been told. The monetary system had it's time...
mobildeath 6 months ago
@mobildeath WHat the hell you babbling about? The world can't be proven flat.
Let's stick with empirically sound beliefs here, which the Venus Porject is not.
TVP has no answer for the economic calculation problem, we can't stress how crucial that is.
I'm glad TVP mantra is volunteerism, so I respect that, however, you should be empirical too. You can't just say technology will solve things without demonstrating how
GtheMVP 6 months ago
Economics is the most counter productive technological suppression tool ever developed, and if you want some solid proof here is a list of names that died poor and defeated by the monetary system who were some of the greatest inventors ever in history. Edwin Armstrong(Fm Radio ring a bell?), Nikola Tesla, Stanislaw Burzynski. Im sure the best solution economics could come up with was suppression, though that was far from the true best utilization.
mobildeath 6 months ago
@mobildeath My trading in a peaceful/voluntary way with anyone else, did not kill any of your aforrmentioned.
Economics is what occurs between two willing people in a voluntary exchange. EVen if your Venus Project becomes reality, people will still trade for goods, there's no way we can all have everything. People will want some currency to save from crarrying everything they own
Currency is just a means between trade, however, it's dangerous under monopolies. We need competing currencies
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@TeeJaySaz
- If you don't want to belong to a RBE, don't join. Simple.
- A solution to our problems is not to perpetuate the system that creates them. Our current system leaves billions on the planet in poverty.
- TZM advocates a system of distributing resources without money. There is no private ownership because there is abundance. All your talk about anarcho-communism is irrelevant--it's a straw man argument. A RBE is a system of equity, harmony, and balance. No monetary system can compete
Flashmusikal 7 months ago
@Flashmusikal The only thing we should have to say toyour group is that you have no proof that you could actually distribute resources without the pice mechanism. Until that is proven, red flags should be flying for you.
DOn't forget, that witohut money, yo can't pay people to work, as TVP still relies primarily on manual labour. automation of your scale is a long way off, and even then, it will be longer until we can build robots that can repair, and build, not to mention program,other robts
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@GtheMVP We already have the technology to do many things that the average human is not even aware of. Technology is going forward really fast and it would go even faster without all the problems that the monetary system and competition brings with them. But you can defend the system all you want, it is going down and it is going down fast. Doesn't need a genius to figure out that resources are running out, planet is overpopulated and we are still fighting each other.
MrSupercluster 6 months ago
@MrSupercluster I'm not defending the current system, I'm an anarchist/libertarin,
No technology can account accurately/predict for what humans will want, so we need a system in place that's felixible with our dynamics.
Price IS the proven winner so far, but if TVP as something better, they need to prove it w empirical facts, which they've not.
You guys also blame money for things, however, it's just a tool. The only problem lies in gov't monopolies. Competing currencies solves this
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@GtheMVP Thousands of years ago, humans managed to distribute resources without money or any form of barter when there was no concept of private property. Hunter/gatherers understood how to stay in balance. In a RBE, you don't pay people to work. A true RBE means complete automation, which is not as far off as you think. The world is already headed in this direction. The current system has no coping mechanism for the imbalance that will be created when unemployment on a large scale occurs.
Flashmusikal 6 months ago
@Flashmusikal we're not talking small tribes here.
The economic calculation problem (we're talking actual science here, something you guys pretend to embrace) does not apply to small clusters of people.
What's true automation either? Are we talking robots that can build and repair other robots, that will handle all forms of labour? No even Jaques is talking that ype of nonsense, he knos much labour will be required.
Few will work for free, ask Che Guevera;)
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@GtheMVP
The economic calculation problem is not science. Why? Because economics is not science.
TheRyantherenegade 6 months ago
Comment removed
GtheMVP 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRyantherenegade The price mechanism is our best proven tool for resource allocation, and free markets are our best means for mass prosperity, the empirical data doesn't lie.
You guys babble about science and the scientific method, yet you have no evidence for your RBE claims.
btw, every economy is resource based
GtheMVP 6 months ago
@GtheMVP (from wiki, just to help you out)
Automation is the use of control systems and information technologies to reduce the need for human work in the production of goods and services.
Wiki goes on to say that overcoming limitations of automation is one of the fields of post-scarcity economics. (i.e the zeitgeist movement.)
TheRyantherenegade 6 months ago
@TheRyantherenegade You're the one who said "complete automation" though, so what do you mean by that?
I understand what automation is, but even the most automated systemswill need labour/human involvement for the forseeable future.
Let's be honest here, there's always going to be a need for human labour, at least in the perceivable future.
Use Jaque's words against gim, you can never look too far into the future
GtheMVP 6 months ago
-The fact that there are no dissenting opinions in "Moving Forward" doesn't invalidate the information.
- Central planning in a monetary system has never worked. There are no examples of central planning in a non-monetary system to show, just as there are no examples of a true "free-market" economy for you to show.
- In a society predicated on sustainability, people's wants and values will be different i.e. not so complex as to be incalculable.
- Marxism=money, resource based economy= no money
Flashmusikal 7 months ago
TZM is a cult. They censor comments and accuse people of having psychological distortions who disagree with them. CULT
resourcebasedhuman 7 months ago 3
can you please tell me your sources for the statement you make at about 6:30
especially the death penalty part.
the most i have read about this period is wikipedia and anarcho communist sources, so there is a fair chance that my view is somewhat incomplete…
sofiasmartis 7 months ago
"There's no solution to the problem of oligarchy."
It's called open source, I highly suggest looking into it. ;)
masterkl16 7 months ago
Hehe, He fails on so many levels. Always asking show me, show me. I don't even have to start debating any of his points since he can't show when any of the past models and systems he seems to advocate have worked. The answer is never. We need a new paradigm, a fresh way of thinking. Yes we might make mistakes, and yes we might fall. But we have to try again. ZM and VP at least have new ideas, Not some stale and old ones like Steph and Chomksy seem to have.
MrSupercluster 7 months ago
Comment removed
t3hlulz 7 months ago
@MrSupercluste lol, wanting to take away the monopoly on force, theft and violence from the gov't is a stale idea? History/empirical evidence clearly shows humans at their most prosperous when markets are their freest and government is at its weakest.
If the TVP is supposed to operate using the scientific method, you better have some verifiable/reproduceable results to prove you can build a society without the price mechanism. Central planning always fails horribly, history isn't lying here
GtheMVP 7 months ago
@GtheMVP History shows no such thing. The society we have today works i'll give you that, then again raping children also works but it doesn't mean we should accept it as the way it is. Our whole existence is based on competition but it doesn't need to be so... Douglas P. Fry debunks the idea that war and conflict is ancient and inevitable and that there is an inborn instinct of aggression in humans. So maybe there is a better way?
MrSupercluster 6 months ago
@MrSupercluster You look at the most prosperous moments in any civiclization, and it is always a result of freer markets. China nd India have seen hundreds of millions escaping poverty due to freer markrts, whilethe nanny state in the west tumbles into depression, poverty etc...
Our society (West) doesn't work, I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating the present. We have a giant parasitic state stealing wealth and giving it to their cronies, or bribing tax payers with it.
GtheMVP 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrSupercluster 7 months ago
I think you will find yourself very surprised that the calculation problem has been solved many years ago.
see here > ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book//calculation_debate.pdf
GalenAus 7 months ago in playlist Freedomain/Zeitgeist
About being "forced" into a system. If I say "play my game or i'll shoot you" I'm forcing, yet you don't realise the same use of force in "if you don't play my game you'll starve". It is the same: there is a liability at stake which is you're well being and if you do not do it you suffer. So people are indeed Forced to use money and enter in the society
Joker9588 8 months ago
There are numerous mechanisms that are key for RBE that are not for marxism. But there is a key similarity in both: the aim to social system that is abundant, equal and fair.
The problem is the american culture indoctrinates its citizens to see marxism as the boogy man that is why you just say "It's marxism" without elaborating, because marxism is the representation of evil. You need to get over those labels to form a critical criticism and actually understand a RBE and check its validity
Joker9588 8 months ago
About Marxism you are oversimplifying. Because a RBE and marxism have one thing in common that doesn't make them "sister systems" so to speak here is an example:
Marxism and Capitalism have currency systems, political structures of government, financial institutions, judicial systems... Does this make Capitalism and Marxism the same or alike?
You cannot make the extrapollation of claiming a system is a version of the other just because it contains a characteristic that is central in the first.
Joker9588 8 months ago
3. You also speak of certain problems that computers can't solve, indeed true.
Finding the reproducing sequences in pi wouldn't be possible p.e. but that is an unsolvable problem in a mathematical context not a managment one, so please give me an example of one of this unsolvable problems in a resource managment and distribution sense because I can't see any.
Joker9588 8 months ago
Comment removed
Joker9588 8 months ago
3. You claim that the preferences, consumption rates etc... of the world can't be calculated, could you support this view with evidence? I don't know how much calculations would be envolved in calculating the world's consumption rates etc... but based on the calculating capacity of current super computers which is 8.2 quatrillion calculations per second(1 quatrillion=1000 billions)I'm ready to believe that that is possible.
And remember that on a 2 year average a faster super computer is created
Joker9588 8 months ago
2. (continuing) Politics, unlike computers, cannot be programmed to rigidly follow their objective: to serve the people. It is because they are human that they fail, they do not have the managment capacity and they do not respect their purpose as politics. Think of it as automation of politics in order to have better most efficient politics the same way the industrial revolution created better most efficient products.
Joker9588 8 months ago
2. (continuing)When you refer to Communism you refer to a system than has nothing to do with a RBE for Communism is ruled by a humans who failed given the poverty and etc...in communist countries. RBE is managed by a computer that is at the frontline of current processing capacity in order to, having all factors into account, do what it is programmed to do: distribute resources abundantly and efficiently. (continues)
Joker9588 8 months ago
(continuing)
The dissent evidence (the movie presents "opinions" of scientists, philosophers etc... based on evidence from study and research some of those displayed in the film) must come from those who have reasons to disagree with the evidence presented obviously, if I agree with the idea is because I don't have enough dissent evidence if you do then present them,
2. We cannot give you any historical evidence than a RBE has ever worked for it has never been implemented. (continues)
Joker9588 8 months ago
(continuing)
About the holes I'll just add : remember how scientific relativism works: no theory is ever right for relativism accepts that there the only absolute is change so you can never be absolutely right of anything. So the best theoryis the one with less holes, but all of them hav'em. And I think the monetary system as many more than a RBE (p.e. billions of starving people)
(continues)
Joker9588 8 months ago
Hello, thank you for the constructive criticism that is what the movement needs in order to revise and reassure its ideas. I'm not Peter Joseph but maybe you'll consider my answer as well.
1. The movement/movie advocates an idea that is complex so the movie as to focus on presenting it as detailed and clearly with as much evidence as possible. The idea advocated is not perfect and has holes indeed but the movie cannot cover that for it is too long and would decrease the credibility of the idea
Joker9588 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
I can't even believe what I am reading in these comments, I can only conclude that collectivists are economic retards.
KilllaCaleb 8 months ago
Then you have a ridiculously large population, and you should slow down. Touch Screen Phone: You can cover the worlds surface in glass, likewise with any other component in the phone. Adv. Tech always leads smaller resource consumption. Comp. used to take up entire offices. No Companies in an RBE. And Everyone has access to the latest tech. because the latest tech is about LESS resource consumption. Watch some Fresco Lectures, and Z Lectures, getting tired of answering the same questions.
1519kyle 8 months ago
Stefan, I appreciate the fact that you kept your ego out of this response and didn't laugh at or belittle Peter or his ideas and there was more substance as well.
paullie6719 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@voiceofreason467
You work in a supply shop
there is 10 of X,and there wont be any more X since its made from scarce resource
20 people come and ask for X as the same time
WHAT DO YOU DO EXACTLY?
AND NO
"so everyone gets to benefit from it as much as possible." IS NOT AN ANSWER SINCE IT LACK SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
niinja2 8 months ago
Comment removed
niinja2 8 months ago
Comment removed
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
"those who don't need it 24/7 will return it after they are done with it and it get's transferred around."
LFMAO
YOU DONT RETURN A CELL PHONE!!!!
what the hell is wrong with you, you cant return everything
what if someone calls you????
"This the problem, your assuming through a prioritizing that people will use it 24/7 throughout all spectrum's."
AND YOUR ASSUMING EVERYTHING CAN BE RETURNED!!!!
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
some company makes a new iphone,
there is not enough of them for everybody who wants it
how do you decide what people do get it
i mean how cant you understand the problem here?
niinja2 8 months ago
@niinja2 There are enough resources so everyone can have a good phone. The manufacture of goods in an RBE is done by the production system, it is a variable production system (meaning customization is possible) the Idea is not that some corporation keep selling new phones to you every year, (hence disrespecting energy involved) but the phones having the longest life technically possible at that time. In the not too distant future we may have chips in our necks allowing sub-vocal communication.
1519kyle 8 months ago
@1519kyle
"There are enough resources so everyone can have a good phone. "
what happens if there is not enough of resources for all of the people to have some "thing"
"the Idea is not that some corporation keep selling new phones to you every year"
yeah but when company develops a new iphone, not everybody will have it in RBE, if anyone, what is the point of developing new technology when you cant even use it. technology advancement will slow down.
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
its hard for me to understand how cant you see he problem, like you say we will never have a choice in picking the stuff we want? Thats just silly.
sometimes you will have a choice, you and 20 other people, what happens when all of you chose things that are scarce, based on what algorithm do you distribute it?
your answer to this question so far is basically nobody gets it...
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
"statement is again an assumption that there is going to be an opinion here"
you sare saying you will never have an option, sometimes there will be an option
i think everybody should have a computer in this new world. Resources for making everybody the same computer are scarce, how do you decide "who gets what" if needs do not meet desires of the people?
niinja2 8 months ago
Desires and preferences of billions of people aren't unique to the individual. Mass media, social programming and advertising actually spoon feed the populace it's likes and dislikes via trends, fads. There are exceptions of course. However very few people think critically and make their own choices and conclusions. At some level even the most discerning people are influenced from another source
brutus301 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
"intrinsic value to support life co-ordinates"
there is no intrinsic value in my opinion, generally i dont understand what this means?
priority is given to preserving life over personal desires? is that what your saying?
what if we have preserved life or every person on earth, and we have resources to spare. Do we use them, and based on what do we say who gets what?
"you just wanted to blinker it out."
your assuming that , its not true.
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
"I just answered that.."
no you did not actually you talked something about finding new resources.
if 20 people want a new desktop computer and there is resources for only 10, who gets it?
this is a concrete question i want a concrete answer.
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
logical mistake
the fact that you can replace one resource does not mean you can replace every single one.
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
you assume we will always be able to replace a resource x with resource y
this is wrong
there will be a time when some resource x will become scarce no matter what efficiency or planing you use, its simply not infinite.
how do you decide who gets it, you must have some kind of points or credits assigned to each person and how much a person is willing to pay for it will determine who gets it....
my point is you cant avoid money
niinja2 8 months ago
@voiceofreason467
there is no problem with my assumption, you can try to place more variables but it all comes down to the same thing, how do you decide what is more important? how do you decide what gets what if the resources get skinny?
niinja2 8 months ago
It needs to be GLOBAL. That's why previous attempts at central planning didn't work..... You seem like a smart guy, I don't get why you can't grasp the core concept....
anotherdrummer23 8 months ago in playlist Delusion of Zeitgeist
Comment removed
anotherdrummer23 8 months ago in playlist Delusion of Zeitgeist
I don't think you defend Coersion as a "free" method. ;)
luffy6666 8 months ago
...are a menace. Want some examples? Monsanto and its GMO's, BP and it's oil splits, tabaco companies hiding studies about cancer, bottled water companies... and many many others.. getting away without any consequences... Please check the information available.
I like very much your videos with that idea of statism and the life stock but I don't agree with your points of view on deregulation of markets. Do you know what Mafia is? Do you know how things work in Sicily?
luffy6666 8 months ago
Stefan, Corporations (the big majority) are private propriety. And we all live under corporatism. Governments work not for the interest of small business but for the interest of monopolistic businesses with a corporative model. Banks some public, but the majority private are corporations. Many people work for corporations. With a money economy, monopoly of one corporation worldwide is inevitable with or without a regulated market, existing or not existing governments. Corporations unregulated...
luffy6666 8 months ago
WATCH THE ARRIVALS!!
pinball281 8 months ago
Eloquent as always, but the ending conclusion was really the gem of this video.
MrGarky 8 months ago
Stefbot,
Did these societies that have tried a non-currency system exist in a bubble? They were, as far as I know, surrounded by a world using a monetary system and subject to its effects and consequences. Moreover, the governing party and its citizens were all raised and educated in a corrupt world where money controlled and ruled everything. Wouldn't you agree that things would be different if nations made these simultaneously and societal education and conciousness was raised first?
CountToBen 8 months ago
/watch?v=MlHxOTw-lXc
10Q very much
5m1nutes 8 months ago
Man, you keep repeating the same crap of misrepresenting the Zeitgeist movement solutions. For example - the ruling of the small elite - PLEASE, FIND ME A QUOTE WHERE PJ SAYS THERE WOULD BE SUCH THING.
I don`t know which one of you both is right and who is wrong but you keep missing PJs points either on purpose or because you are unable to understand them or because of ego driven reason.
5m1nutes 8 months ago
@5m1nutes
"PLEASE, FIND ME A QUOTE WHERE PJ SAYS THERE WOULD BE SUCH THING."
the 3 % that service the computer
or the computer itself, which is btw programed by the people
i dunno which is worse, would you really want that the computer which was made by humans to determine what you need and ignore the desires you want determine what are you going to have
and just because you say the magic word SCIENCE , no it does not make it full proof.
niinja2 8 months ago
@niinja2, magic words? The word "elite" is definitely misrepresentation done purposely. Why is it so hard to grasp for a guy claiming of being software engineer the concept of databases containing information based on empirical observation? Unfortunately, in reality you can`t have whatever you want if there aren`t enough resources and U must adapt to the environment, not the other way around.
When you go to a doctor a scientific medical elite dictates what kind of medicine treatment you have to
5m1nutes 8 months ago
@5m1nutes
its hard to grasp it since nobody presented how this resource will be allocated if it is scarce
how do you measure someones desire compared to other desires?
"a scientific medical elite dictates what kind of medicine treatment you have to"
my mother died of cancer, but she also fought a battle with moron doctors that would let her die because of resource allocation or laziness in general, she lived 7 years withe the disease
thats right elite mothercukers that DO NOT CARE
niinja2 8 months ago
@niinja2 how isnt strategic access (based on sharing) more efficient than copying the same goods for everyone especially if they are not using them the whole time? If a resource is scarce you can`t make it abundant with some paper. (not to mention the constant search for alternatives, which will have incentive).
About desires - much of the desires are artificially made through advertising, since the human survival should be top priority, the hell with you desires if your basic survival needs are
5m1nutes 8 months ago
not met. Your last example (I`m sorry about your tragedy) is showing the current monetary oriented medical establishment faults. I`m yet to see example how freemarket would be superior than RBE since the incentive will still be monetary. Are we talking about a resource allocation + the artificially enlarged price for profit, or not?
Is your point proving that all the doctors are evil and their methods arent working?
Isnt the current system spending vast amount of money on stupid military oper
5m1nutes 8 months ago