View Full Version : Zeitgeist: Moving Forward Setting Up To Be Huge International Success
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:16 AM
The third Zeitgeist movie has been released. It made world records for having the most worldwide screening locations of any independent film in history :collins: with over 300 locations.
Cities around the world have been experiencing sold-out crowds from Canada to Serbia!
-----------------------------------------------
In Vancouver they booked an 820-seat theater but had about 2,000 people show up! They had to turn hundreds away.
In Serbia they had a 400-seat theater overflowing with people, many people sitting on the floor and in the aisles! They "had" to book additional screenings to meet the demand.
Brazil is reporting over capacity crowds and booking new screenings in larger venues.
Croatia has had sell out crowds with professors, scientists and media in attendance.
Denmark and the Netherlands have both had press and public screenings that included former members of Parliament, scientists and professors.
In Russia, the theaters finally caught the buzz about the film and have agreed to screen in 2 theaters, which were virtually impossible to secure before.
Fact :collins: Zeitgeist 1 was the most watched internet movie in history.
My roommate is the Zeitgeist coordinator in my town. We have a lot of arguments, but ultimately both of us do not believe in big government (he doesn't really believe in any), the Zeitgeist movement isn't meant to force anything on anybody. I do disagree with not using money, but if it's a voluntary project then they shouldn't be forced to use money. That's how I see it, anyway. Then again, the Zeitgeist movement could easily be co-opted and they could try and force a technocommunist model on everybody. Should be interesting.
EDIT:
Now on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
TortoiseDream
01-21-2011, 01:18 AM
1 was good
first half of 2 was good
second half of 2 was meh...
Vessol
01-21-2011, 01:20 AM
If those who follow the "Zeitgeist movement" believe that the State is immoral and that they would never push their techno-communist ideas on other, then they are my allies I'd guess..
The problem is that watching #2..they don't really stress those two points. All they really talk about is "capitalism is evil", they don't really stress anything about the State or about anything being voluntary.
Any links to watch the movie online? I agree that the first movie was good, the second was good until they went into the utopia stuff.
emazur
01-21-2011, 01:23 AM
I really liked both movies despite some flaws - it aired it my city today but I may go to the 2nd airing on Saturday
DamianTV
01-21-2011, 01:38 AM
Its supposed to be the 3rd in the series, and is supposed to be released for online viewing sometime this month. The original date had it pegged on the 16th (IMHO) but its not out yet.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:40 AM
Its supposed to be the 3rd in the series, and is supposed to be released for online viewing sometime this month. The original date had it pegged on the 16th (IMHO) but its not out yet.
They screened it in Los Angeles on the 15th, my roommate is screening it so I have access to the DVD.. but I'm waiting for my local showing to watch it.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:41 AM
//
Vessol
01-21-2011, 01:41 AM
The main thing I don't understand about their claims and their goals is.
#1: They fail to understand that money is not some evil contraption made to trap us all in debt. Sure that's the end result of a government monopolized fiat currency, but money is just another way to facilitate trade. Money could be gold, it could be clams, hell it could be stories. I actually played an interesting MUD where there was a culture and their currency and standing in society was based off the stories they could tell.
#2: They claim the problem with the world is that resources are finite..which is true. That's why central planning fails and a free market allocates those resources much more better. Their claims towards technology are nice and all, but perhaps they can come up with something better than "Well, believe us, and in the future with better technology the world will be a great place!", where is this technology going to come from? How is it going to change a finite resources scenerio to an infinite resources scenario so that everyone can live equally? Are they just going to invent those things in Star Trek that just materialize food and stuff? They're nice ideas, but not founded in realism IMHO.
Again, they also barely focus on the immorality of the State nor do they focus on the fact that such a change should be voluntary. I'd like to see what they'd think if I was in their society and I wanted to own my land and the production that comes with it?
DamianTV
01-21-2011, 01:43 AM
Money is not the cause of greed, it is the result.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:46 AM
If those who follow the "Zeitgeist movement" believe that the State is immoral and that they would never push their techno-communist ideas on other, then they are my allies I'd guess..
The problem is that watching #2..they don't really stress those two points. All they really talk about is "capitalism is evil", they don't really stress anything about the State or about anything being voluntary.
Ya, that's the problem I have with it, they don't understand the benefits of a free market or capitalism.. which is cool if they want to go off and do their own thing, they just need to emphasize that it is voluntary, which they do not emphasize.. I assume that is the consensus within the Zeitgeist community, they never talk about forcing people to do stuff, but they think getting rid of currency is necessary. If they want to build a technosociety on their own terms, without the use of money, and let in or keep out whoever they want then that's great..
Any links to watch the movie online? I agree that the first movie was good, the second was good until they went into the utopia stuff.
I actually liked SOME of the utopia stuff that related to technology..
Not sure about links, haven't looked, I'll try and post one in the OP if I or someone finds one.
Vessol
01-21-2011, 01:49 AM
There's nothing wrong with greed IMO. Personally I don't even like the name 'greed' because of it's negative connotations. I prefer "want". When I use the word greed, people automatically think of money, yet I'm a very charitable and not that much of a entrepreneurial type who desires money, rather I desire knowledge and experience. I'm greedy for them by definition, is this bad?
It's when people allow others to rule over them involuntarily, that's when greed becomes bad as it allows people who are greedy to abuse this.
aravoth
01-21-2011, 01:50 AM
Not that I aggree with the "Zeitgeist" solution, but I'm pretty sure that they made it quite clear in the second film that government, in any for other than voluntary communal, was not something they subscribed too.
There's nothing wrong with greed IMO. Personally I don't even like the name 'greed' because of it's negative connotations. I prefer "want". When I use the word greed, people automatically think of money, yet I'm a very charitable and not that much of a entrepreneurial type who desires money, rather I desire knowledge and experience. I'm greedy for them by definition, is this bad?
It's when people allow others to rule over them involuntarily, that's when greed becomes bad as it allows people who are greedy to abuse this.
Greed implies you'd break your own mothers neck to get what you want. Want is a bit tamer of a term by itself because it has no implication as to how far you will go to get what you want.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:53 AM
The main thing I don't understand about their claims and their goals is.
#1: They fail to understand that money is not some evil contraption made to trap us all in debt. Sure that's the end result of a government monopolized fiat currency, but money is just another way to facilitate trade. Money could be gold, it could be clams, hell it could be stories. I actually played an interesting MUD where there was a culture and their currency and standing in society was based off the stories they could tell.
#2: They claim the problem with the world is that resources are finite..which is true. That's why central planning fails and a free market allocates those resources much more better. Their claims towards technology are nice and all, but perhaps they can come up with something better than "Well, believe us, and in the future with better technology the world will be a great place!", where is this technology going to come from? How is it going to change a finite resources scenerio to an infinite resources scenario so that everyone can live equally? Are they just going to invent those things in Star Trek that just materialize food and stuff? They're nice ideas, but not founded in realism IMHO.
They want to build sky farms, which are like skyscrapers, but farms. I imagine the rooms would have to be tall and skinny cause otherwise they wouldn't get much light except for when the sun was on that side of the building.. they wouldn't get a lot of light mid-day, and then they would cast a shadow on any near by sky farms. I guess you can't build them too close together. I think I need to take a closer look at their design of those things.
Again, they also barely focus on the immorality of the State nor do they focus on the fact that such a change should be voluntary. I'd like to see what they'd think if I was in their society and I wanted to own my land and the production that comes with it?
You forgot to mention how much they hate competition.
I went through a whole scenario with my roommate about a communal society where some guy lives off on his own, comes in and voluntarily trades with the community, things they needed and gave him excess of what they had, everyone benefits. It was going great until I introduced another character who came into town who was willing to trade more stuff they needed for less stuff that he needed.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:54 AM
Can't seem to educate him on the zero sum fallacy, either.. that's why he thinks capitalism and competition are bad, because he doesn't understand the zero sum fallacy..
Vessol
01-21-2011, 01:57 AM
I actually liked SOME of the utopia stuff that related to technology..
Not sure about links, haven't looked, I'll try and post one in the OP if I or someone finds one.
The utopa stuff just made me think I was watching the Jetsons or some other future optimistic film from the 60's. I like the ideas of course, but I see little evidence that this technology is possible. The excuse they use is "the corporations are evil and don't let this kind of stuff develop". Well fuck, if they are screening at this many theaters and have this many people supporting them, maybe they should start gathering money from their fans so that they can start research and development for this stuff. Though, that would be kind of hypocritical, lol. How do they plan to develop and research this kind of stuff? Where will they get the resources to develop the technology that will make us independent from finite resource-based economy?
All these crazy buildings and grav-trains and energy plants they propose. Who is going to build them. In a society where everyone is equal and free, who will be the sucker who gets to mine the ore? Who'll get to smelt it. And finally, who will build it? I guess they could just be lazy and say "robots will do it!", except who's going to build those robots and mine the ore for them..and on and on. No one will volunteer for that shit when you could just be "free from being a wage slave"
See, this is why I don't like the utopia crap anyone pushes, they don't give any details except the end result. What are the means to the end? The means never justify the end goal, no matter how noble.
I think that this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Is a much more practical and philosophical than what they propose with no explanations given. There's no crazy technology that is required, just the simple philosophy of self-ownership. If we wanted it, a free society absent of Statism and violent coersion could happen right now(though most currently would want it). Maybe the 3rd movie will explain how exactly they propose the "transition"? Because it'll have to be mighty big for all the technological progress that is dependent for this to succeed.
dannno
01-21-2011, 02:20 AM
The utopa stuff just made me think I was watching the Jetsons or some other future optimistic film from the 60's. I like the ideas of course, but I see little evidence that this technology is possible. The excuse they use is "the corporations are evil and don't let this kind of stuff develop". Well fuck, if they are screening at this many theaters and have this many people supporting them, maybe they should start gathering money from their fans so that they can start research and development for this stuff. Though, that would be kind of hypocritical, lol. How do they plan to develop and research this kind of stuff? Where will they get the resources to develop the technology that will make us independent from finite resource-based economy?
All these crazy buildings and grav-trains and energy plants they propose. Who is going to build them. In a society where everyone is equal and free, who will be the sucker who gets to mine the ore? Who'll get to smelt it. And finally, who will build it? I guess they could just be lazy and say "robots will do it!", except who's going to build those robots and mine the ore for them..and on and on. No one will volunteer for that shit when you could just be "free from being a wage slave"
See, this is why I don't like the utopia crap anyone pushes, they don't give any details except the end result. What are the means to the end? The means never justify the end goal, no matter how noble.
I think that this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Is a much more practical and philosophical than what they propose with no explanations given. There's no crazy technology that is required, just the simple philosophy of self-ownership. If we wanted it, a free society absent of Statism and violent coersion could happen right now(though most currently would want it). Maybe the 3rd movie will explain how exactly they propose the "transition"? Because it'll have to be mighty big for all the technological progress that is dependent for this to succeed.
Yep.. I completely agree, I've tried explaining all that stuff, it's pretty frustrating at times. He thinks people will just get up and start building it when they are free from the system, don't have to pay taxes or rent (aka stealing from the owners) or mortgage, etc.. just need sky farms to feed people and get started.. people won't want the materialistic crap they desire because there won't be advertising because the profit motive won't be there.. it's really not very practical to move to this type of system overnight. I can see if we turned to a free market and became really wealthy, had everything we needed and everything setup to support us foodwise, maybe everybody voluntarily agrees to work a couple days a year on maintenance of this or that, why would anybody desire ownership of the factories or even selling things if everything we'd need is already being produced through automation or voluntarily by individuals? Money could become obsolete.. property ownership could maaaybee become obsolete.. but you can't force that stuff on people, you need to create the wealth first then live off your savings and investments..
Vessol
01-21-2011, 02:28 AM
Yeah, hehe. It's one thing to say that everyone would just do it 'voluntarily', even if that was true. Let's say you have a group of people who all work in a building. They all get to voluntarily choose what they wish to do, which idiot is going to volunteer to clean toilets or the floors? And even if he did, you don't think after years of scrubbing toilets he'll be that happy when comparatively his friend is making music and doing all sorts of fun stuff? Let's say that they automate all that boring and menial stuff. Let's say only the fun and good jobs still exist.
What about SPACE EXPLORERS! Everyone wants to explore space, what idiot doesn't want to. What if I'm a musician and my buddy is a space explorer. If I want to become a space explorer, what's stopping from 1 million other people from demanding the same thing? What if no one wants to maintain the robots that do all the menial labor, are they trying to tell me that they somehow intend to build robots that never break?
Someone is always going to be stuck at the bottom, and in a system like this there is no way to move up from the bottom unlike in a truly free market.
Vessol
01-21-2011, 02:39 AM
I just read an online review of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.
Yeah, I'm not even sure I want to see this film now.
They're basically proposing a centralized controlled economy which is controlled by a all powerful and all knowing computer which provides for us all we need.
http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-san-francisco/review-zeitgeist-moving-forward-review
"This kind of malfeasance is not possible when the medium of exchange is a commodity because the currency is not a record of debt, but a resourse. But instead the film completely conflates the two, treating all mediums of exchange as identical when they are not. The film attacks free-market Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek who were arguing against paper currency, and it completely ignores the the role of state coercion in sheltering monopolistic contractors from liability for their actions.
..
In Fresco’s vision there is no currency and no market. Instead society is structured entirely in order to allocate resources efficiently. He imagines cities as circular wonderlands of science and technology where all labor is replaced by automated robotics. All demand is calculated based on surveys that people fill out describing their needs. You would basically vote for everything you wanted from essential food and shelter, to recreation and relaxation.
To do away with currency completely you must of course do away ownership itself, otherwise people would barter, and an accepted medium of exchange would naturally develop in the market. He embraces this completely saying that exclusive ownership of property would be replaced with communal “access” to property. He imagines that all stores would be operated like public libraries where you would check out the items you needed and return them when you’re done. The vehicle you used to commute to work would be reallocated to another commuter while you were at work. This raises that age-old bugbear of a question, “If there’s no private property do I own myself, or is my body communal property?”
What he is advocating, though he did not say so explicitly, is a centrally planned economy. And he imagines that he has solved the problem of corruption in central planning by seeding decision making authority to a scientific process instead of a human leader. In his animation, as Matrix like tumbles of numbers allegedly calculate supply and demand in elegant efficiency, bold red letters flash across the screen saying “NO OPINIONS!” While I’m certain he intended this as some kind of a virtue of his system, to me it is the worst of tyrants who adopts that as his slogan. In the film he praises a system built on the laws of nature because they are not arbitrary like human law, but then he says blatantly, “like it or not, nature is a dictatorship.”
Scientific calculation does not solve the problem of human corruption because someone has to input the data, someone has to report the results, someone has to give the order how to act upon the results and in a centrally planned economy someone has to punish those who would not follow those orders.
The essential question is, if a scientifically efficient program determines my needs for me, what If my subjective sense of my own needs is different? Am I free to disagree? But he doesn’t seem too concerned with freedom. In fact, he mocks those who would speak of liberty as closed minded, jingoistic misanthropes. And asserts that freewill is an illusion.
Behind all the technobabble is the simple fact that a centrally planned economy is enforced through the threat of violence. Although he does at one point speculate that his idea is so brilliant that people will volunteer in droves. Some will. But if you don’t do your job, if you don’t play along, if you don’t do what the central planning computer tells you is most efficient there must be consequences, or you don’t have central planning anymore. You have a free market.
They say from the beginning that it is essential to raise children without violence. But violence is the final arrow in the quiver of a centrally planned economy. So, if raising children in a violent environment produces violent adults, an authoritarian sociopath will eventually ascend the halls of power in any system predicated on coercion. Such a system, engineered entirely to maximize efficiency, will eventually fall into the hands of dictator. As any good physician will tell you, if you treat the symptom without addressing the underlying cause, the symptom will reemerge."
dannno
01-21-2011, 02:56 AM
I just read an online review of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.
Yeah, I'm not even sure I want to see this film now.
They're basically proposing a centralized controlled economy which is controlled by a all powerful and all knowing computer which provides for us all we need.
http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-san-francisco/review-zeitgeist-moving-forward-review
"This kind of malfeasance is not possible when the medium of exchange is a commodity because the currency is not a record of debt, but a resourse. But instead the film completely conflates the two, treating all mediums of exchange as identical when they are not. The film attacks free-market Austrian economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek who were arguing against paper currency, and it completely ignores the the role of state coercion in sheltering monopolistic contractors from liability for their actions.
..
In Fresco’s vision there is no currency and no market. Instead society is structured entirely in order to allocate resources efficiently. He imagines cities as circular wonderlands of science and technology where all labor is replaced by automated robotics. All demand is calculated based on surveys that people fill out describing their needs. You would basically vote for everything you wanted from essential food and shelter, to recreation and relaxation.
To do away with currency completely you must of course do away ownership itself, otherwise people would barter, and an accepted medium of exchange would naturally develop in the market. He embraces this completely saying that exclusive ownership of property would be replaced with communal “access” to property. He imagines that all stores would be operated like public libraries where you would check out the items you needed and return them when you’re done. The vehicle you used to commute to work would be reallocated to another commuter while you were at work. This raises that age-old bugbear of a question, “If there’s no private property do I own myself, or is my body communal property?”
What he is advocating, though he did not say so explicitly, is a centrally planned economy. And he imagines that he has solved the problem of corruption in central planning by seeding decision making authority to a scientific process instead of a human leader. In his animation, as Matrix like tumbles of numbers allegedly calculate supply and demand in elegant efficiency, bold red letters flash across the screen saying “NO OPINIONS!” While I’m certain he intended this as some kind of a virtue of his system, to me it is the worst of tyrants who adopts that as his slogan. In the film he praises a system built on the laws of nature because they are not arbitrary like human law, but then he says blatantly, “like it or not, nature is a dictatorship.”
Scientific calculation does not solve the problem of human corruption because someone has to input the data, someone has to report the results, someone has to give the order how to act upon the results and in a centrally planned economy someone has to punish those who would not follow those orders.
The essential question is, if a scientifically efficient program determines my needs for me, what If my subjective sense of my own needs is different? Am I free to disagree? But he doesn’t seem too concerned with freedom. In fact, he mocks those who would speak of liberty as closed minded, jingoistic misanthropes. And asserts that freewill is an illusion.
Behind all the technobabble is the simple fact that a centrally planned economy is enforced through the threat of violence. Although he does at one point speculate that his idea is so brilliant that people will volunteer in droves. Some will. But if you don’t do your job, if you don’t play along, if you don’t do what the central planning computer tells you is most efficient there must be consequences, or you don’t have central planning anymore. You have a free market.
They say from the beginning that it is essential to raise children without violence. But violence is the final arrow in the quiver of a centrally planned economy. So, if raising children in a violent environment produces violent adults, an authoritarian sociopath will eventually ascend the halls of power in any system predicated on coercion. Such a system, engineered entirely to maximize efficiency, will eventually fall into the hands of dictator. As any good physician will tell you, if you treat the symptom without addressing the underlying cause, the symptom will reemerge."
Hmm I hope that isn't true.. I'll be watching closely to see how they handle the whole coercion thing and let you know.
Same as the others, I liked the first one but the second went off into la-la land, dannno, just tell your friend.....
"Well, the world needs ditch-diggers too!" :D
http://imageupload.org/?di=9129560647210
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 06:36 AM
Zeitgeist = controlled opposition. It's purpose is to "educate" (mis-educate) everyone that religion is bad so they'll accept the new global religion of theosophy, that "capitalism" is bad so that they'll accept the new "voluntary" (for starters) socialism and that government is bad so that they'll accept the new global government. There is a reason ZG is being pushed harder than much better documentaries that cover much of the same material.
hazek
01-21-2011, 06:46 AM
Zeitgeist = controlled opposition. It's purpose is to "educate" (mis-educate) everyone that religion is bad so they'll accept the new global religion of theosophy, that "capitalism" is bad so that they'll accept the new "voluntary" (for starters) socialism and that government is bad so that they'll accept the new global government. There is a reason ZG is being pushed harder than much better documentaries that cover much of the same material.
You might be 15% right which depends on the viewer.
In my case Zeitgeist 1 really shocked me, especially with the money part and it caused me to further research the FED which lead me to Ron. I guess if the viewer is the kind who wont further research things but rather just take the movie at face value then you're right. But I don't see how that is any different from this same viewer being under the influence of the daily propaganda of the MSM. In my cause and I'd like to believe in the majority of cases it causes the viewer to think about these topics and further research them which hopefully should send them on the right path of finding the truth. I did for me.
NYgs23
01-21-2011, 09:08 AM
Zeitgeist really strikes me as particularly sinister propaganda. It draws you in by painting itself as anti-establishment, truth-telling, etc, and ends up advocating a technocratic totalitarian world state--a rehash of the most execrable 19th century communist pipe dreams but with computers! Voluntary my ass.
And judging by the descriptions of the third movie, each is worse than the last, all the better to draw dupes in gradually.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 09:58 AM
You might be 15% right which depends on the viewer.
In my case Zeitgeist 1 really shocked me, especially with the money part and it caused me to further research the FED which lead me to Ron. I guess if the viewer is the kind who wont further research things but rather just take the movie at face value then you're right. But I don't see how that is any different from this same viewer being under the influence of the daily propaganda of the MSM. In my cause and I'd like to believe in the majority of cases it causes the viewer to think about these topics and further research them which hopefully should send them on the right path of finding the truth. I did for me.
You have a valid point. I think this is why Alex Jones didn't attack the first movie even though they ripped off a lot of his material and he's strongly against part 1. I'm sure he thought "Hey, they're getting out the truth about 9/11 and the fed so we can agree to disagree with the other part." But there are two dangers. The first is that people might not ever do their own research and believe that the false parts of ZG are true. The second danger, which is equally bad, is that they discover the false parts, but then assume the true parts are false. I can see it now. Someone tries to talk to someone else about WTC 7 and the response they get is "Oh yeah. I've seen that movie Zeitgeist. Are you some kind of techno-commie?"
Zeitgeist really strikes me as particularly sinister propaganda. It draws you in by painting itself as anti-establishment, truth-telling, etc, and ends up advocating a technocratic totalitarian world state--a rehash of the most execrable 19th century communist pipe dreams but with computers! Voluntary my ass.
And judging by the descriptions of the third movie, each is worse than the last, all the better to draw dupes in gradually.
Good assessment. Especially about this not really being voluntary. Marx claimed his system would eventually be "voluntary". The dictatorship of the proletariat was only supposed to be "temporary" until people were "re-educated". The ZG movement, for now, skips over the dictatorship part. But what happens when they realize they aren't making as much "progress" as they'd like? If they get powerful enough to force their view? You can change mass behavior through coercion or "re-education". Religion is a powerful re-educator which is why ZG is pushing theosophy. A "new" religion must take the place of the "old" (Christianity). Only theosophy isn't new at all. It's roots go back to ancient Babylon and beyond. The movement will grow for sure, especially considering who is likely behind it. But, like all socialism, it will fail to deliver it's promises because of the inherent inefficiencies of central planning (even voluntary central planning). At that point, those who don't go along will be blamed for "mucking things up". And that's when the voluntariness will end.
Fredom101
01-21-2011, 10:22 AM
The first Zeitgeist was amazing.
The second one outlined many of the problems in the first half, but went batshit crazy in the 2nd half, advocating no money whatsoever. They say no government, but then they defer to the Venus Project for everything. So it was never explained to me what happens if I WANT to use money in a zeitgeist utopia? Seems to me they are simply advocating communism. I'm not very hopeful for ZG3.
Fredom101
01-21-2011, 10:26 AM
Zeitgeist = controlled opposition. It's purpose is to "educate" (mis-educate) everyone that religion is bad so they'll accept the new global religion of theosophy, that "capitalism" is bad so that they'll accept the new "voluntary" (for starters) socialism and that government is bad so that they'll accept the new global government. There is a reason ZG is being pushed harder than much better documentaries that cover much of the same material.
Actually, religion was one of the things they were correct about. They were also correct about the Fed, 9/11, and the idea that we need governments. Their solution is where they go insane. No money! Says who? We don't know, but no one needs money!!!
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 10:34 AM
Actually, religion was one of the things they were correct about. They were also correct about the Fed, 9/11, and the idea that we need governments. Their solution is where they go insane. No money! Says who? We don't know, but no one needs money!!!
No. They weren't. I completely research everything and found more errors in it in than a George W. Bush dissertation. Everything they said about "solar messiahs" was utter tripe. For example they claimed that Krishna was crucified like Christ. But the Hindu texts say that he was mistaken for a deer and shot in the foot. Crucifixion was never even a method of execution in India. The only "evidence" they have for this bogus claim is some reference in a book by another fake researcher advancing the same "solar messiah thesis" that claims there was an "oral Hindu tradition" of Krishna being crucified, but there is no independent verification of this. A fake documentary quotes a fake book and people who don't do their own independent research fall for it. Even the "pictures" ZG submitted to "prove" their point are obvious fakes. One of a man tied to a tree being shot by arrows came from Europe, not India. Another has Krishna with his hands outstretched but he's not being executed and isn't near a tree or a cross or a stake, let alone tied or nailed to one.
Zeitgeist even got it's astronomy wrong. Here is ZG part one being refuted by a non Christian because of it's bad astronomy. ZG is an embarrassment of a movie.
http://www.tracer345.org/zeitgeist.html
But hey, if you really think it's all true then here's your chance to win $1,000. Just go to http://zeitgeistchallenge.com/ and over real evidence to prove ZG part 1 is true. Not some nonsense reference to some oral tradition that was only mentioned in some crappy book. But actually ancient text that validates the ZG claims. Good luck!
Wesker1982
01-21-2011, 10:35 AM
Can't seem to educate him on the zero sum fallacy, either.. that's why he thinks capitalism and competition are bad, because he doesn't understand the zero sum fallacy..
Any chance that your friend would be willing to read Mises or Rothbard, etc?
Wesker1982
01-21-2011, 10:39 AM
http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-san-francisco/review-zeitgeist-moving-forward-review
Thats cool that he linked the bomb in the brain series
http://freedomainradio.com/videos/freedomainradiothebombinthebrain.aspx
Fredom101
01-21-2011, 10:43 AM
No. They weren't. I completely research everything and found more errors in it in than a George W. Bush dissertation. Everything they said about "solar messiahs" was utter tripe. For example they claimed that Krishna was crucified like Christ. But the Hindu texts say that he was mistaken for a deer and shot in the foot. Crucifixion was never even a method of execution in India. The only "evidence" they have for this bogus claim is some reference in a book by another fake researcher advancing the same "solar messiah thesis" that claims there was an "oral Hindu tradition" of Krishna being crucified, but there is no independent verification of this. A fake documentary quotes a fake book and people who don't do their own independent research fall for it. Even the "pictures" ZG submitted to "prove" their point are obvious fakes. One of a man tied to a tree being shot by arrows came from Europe, not India. Another has Krishna with his hands outstretched but he's not being executed and isn't near a tree or a cross or a stake, let alone tied or nailed to one.
Zeitgeist even got it's astronomy wrong. Here is ZG part one being refuted by a non Christian because of it's bad astronomy. ZG is an embarrassment of a movie.
http://www.tracer345.org/zeitgeist.html
But hey, if you really think it's all true then here's your chance to win $1,000. Just go to http://zeitgeistchallenge.com/ and over real evidence to prove ZG part 1 is true. Not some nonsense reference to some oral tradition that was only mentioned in some crappy book. But actually ancient text that validates the ZG claims. Good luck!
You may be right about some facts they got wrong, I don't know much about Krishna so I'll take your word for it. But the idea that Christianity is nothing new, is nothing new. Peter Joseph did not come up with that. The stuff about how governments used religion to control the masses, the winter solstice, and the comparison to Pagan religions is spot-on...which to me is at the core of it- not his arguments about Hinduism or what the bible actually says.
hazek
01-21-2011, 10:47 AM
You may be right about some facts they got wrong, I don't know much about Krishna so I'll take your word for it. But the idea that Christianity is nothing new, is nothing new. Peter Joseph did not come up with that. The stuff about how governments used religion to control the masses, the winter solstice, and the comparison to Pagan religions is spot-on...which to me is at the core of it- not his arguments about Hinduism or what the bible actually says.
I agree.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 10:55 AM
You may be right about some facts they got wrong, I don't know much about Krishna so I'll take your word for it. But the idea that Christianity is nothing new, is nothing new. Peter Joseph did not come up with that. The stuff about how governments used religion to control the masses, the winter solstice, and the comparison to Pagan religions is spot-on...which to me is at the core of it- not his arguments about Hinduism or what the bible actually says.
I never said it was new. But just because something is not new doesn't mean that it's right. There are a lot of old lies out there. Ask yourself this. Why would Peter Joseph (that's the producer of ZG?) resort to easily disproven lies if he has such a solid case? There are only three possible answers. One is that he's controlled opposition and is just trying to make atheists look bad. The other is that this is just the best evidence available. The third is that he's just stupid. I don't think he's stupid. ZG is too well put together for that explanation.
Oh, and the whole Dec 25th winter solstace thing? You know that actually was introduced to Christianity centuries later right? You cannot get to the idea that Jesus was born on Dec 25th using the Bible. Based on the story of the shepherds (wouldn't be out in the winter) it's impossible for nativity story to have happened on Dec 25th. Paganism was added to Christianity to make it more palatable when Constantine forced the Roman empire to be Christian. That's the real "conspiracy".
hazek
01-21-2011, 11:06 AM
You know what bothers me the most jmdrake? That you are young. That's the one thing that really really reaaaally ticks me off when I read your posts. Your age.
Because you are not some 60+ year old fart who probably already lived his life and can't really think anymore but you are young and you should be at the peak of your brain capability and yet you answer every single unknown with a single answer - religion. God I wish you'd see through this bullshit, I really do. I can't wait the day when we're evolved so far that the whole planet is able to reason and understand the methods of reason and understand that there is no such thing as god.
But I know I can't change you. It's part of your reality. I just hope the day you're on your deathbed you won't look at your life, scared that it's finally over, suddenly realizing how afraid you are of it ending and maybe, just maybe catching yourself think that nothing waits for you once the life energy leaves your human body and you'll look back and feel just sick about how ignorant you lived your life, how closed your eyes were and how much beauty and joy you've missed because of it. I really hope that doesn't happen to you.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 11:26 AM
You know what bothers me the most jmdrake? That you are young. That's the one thing that really really reaaaally ticks me off when I read your posts. Your age.
Really? So now you know my age? LOL. What is it exactly? And how tall am I? How much to I weigh? Do I when a Scooby Doo doll if you guess wrong? :rolleyes:
Because you are not some 60+ year old fart who probably already lived his life and can't really think anymore but you are young and you should be at the peak of your brain capability and yet you answer every single unknown with a single answer - religion. God I wish you'd see through this bullshit, I really do. I can't wait the day when we're evolveds so far that the whole planet is able to reason and understand the methods of reason and understand that there is no such thing as god.
LOL. Because I look at a BS movie and can articulate why it's BS. That's the real reason I anger you. You'd rather be able to post nonsense and not be challenged on it. When I prove your nonsense to be nonsense, instead of saying "Thank you. I'll at least come back with better nonsense next time" you get mad at me for disproving you.
But I know I can't change you.
Yep. But what's sad is that you even attempt to try. It shows that you aren't truly part of the Ron Paul movement. Not because you aren't Christian (though Ron Paul is Christian, but I guess you blame that on him being an "old fart"), but because your priorities are so screwed up that you'd happily advance a factually flawed movie that advances socialism because it attacks Christianity in the process. Worse you are so blind that you don't realize that ZG is NOT "anti religion". It's anti Christianity. It is very pro religion. Here's the religion it promotes.
http://www.piratenews.org/xbo11.jpg
erowe1
01-21-2011, 12:02 PM
When I first heard of Zeitgeist and I looked it up on Wikipedia and saw that a major part of it is trying to sell the Jesus myth hypothesis, I realized it wasn't worth the time it would take to watch it. It's impossible to take that stuff seriously.
erowe1
01-21-2011, 12:06 PM
You cannot get to the idea that Jesus was born on Dec 25th using the Bible. Based on the story of the shepherds (wouldn't be out in the winter) it's impossible for nativity story to have happened on Dec 25th.
Sheep need to eat year round. You'll find plenty of bedouin shepherds out in Israel on Dec. 25 even today. Of course that doesn't tell us anything about when Jesus was born, and you're right that there's nothing special about Dec. 25 except that Christians choose to celebrate Christ's birth then.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 12:13 PM
Sheep need to eat year round. You'll find plenty of bedouin shepherds out in Israel on Dec. 25 even today. Of course that doesn't tell us anything about when Jesus was born, and you're right that there's nothing special about Dec. 25 except that Christians choose to celebrate Christ's birth then.
You may be right. I don't know. I'm certainly no expert on middle eastern animal husbandry. Here's my reference for that claim.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/568/When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm
But yeah, the bigger issue is the lack of any scriptural reference to Dec. 25th. If it were really important to the story of Jesus at least one gospel would have mentioned it.
erowe1
01-21-2011, 12:28 PM
You may be right. I don't know. I'm certainly no expert on middle eastern animal husbandry. Here's my reference for that claim.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/568/When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm
But yeah, the bigger issue is the lack of any scriptural reference to Dec. 25th. If it were really important to the story of Jesus at least one gospel would have mentioned it.
Yeah, I've seen that claim about the shepherds before. I think it's just a talking point that people keep repeating.
It would actually be really weird if the Bible did give a date for Jesus' birth. Most pre-modern people other than the children of emperors and other VIPs didn't even know their exact age, much less their birth days. Jesus could have been an exception to that, given the circumstances of his birth, but even then, it's doubtful that Mary, Joseph, or anyone else around would have known what date it was.
The closest the Bible comes to giving us a benchmark that we could potentially deduce the time of year of Jesus' birth is that John the Baptist's father, who was serving in the Temple around the time John was conceived (although from the text it isn't clear how much time passed between those two events), which was 6 months before Jesus was conceived, was of the priestly division of Abijah (Luke 1:5). Roger Beckwith has argued that this would put Jesus' birth in the winter. But that's based on too much of a string of speculations for me to put much stake in it.
dannno
01-21-2011, 12:29 PM
Anybody who wants to look into whether this mythical person Chrishna (aka Krishna) was crucified or merely shot in the foot, there is an article here which shows both sides of the debate:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mistic/krishna02.htm
Information used to be a lot easier to change or control a hundred, two hundred, 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000+ years ago. Why would there be a lot of evidence confirming something like this one way or another? Especially among oral traditions being passed down. I don't see Chrishna being shot in the foot as any more valid information than Chrishna being crucified after all I've seen at read.
erowe1
01-21-2011, 12:35 PM
Anybody who wants to look into whether this mythical person Chrishna (aka Krishna) was crucified or merely shot in the foot, there is an article here which shows both sides of the debate:
And if anybody wants to look into whether the historical person Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, there is no debate. He was. And any article out there that treats that question as debatable isn't worth reading. However, there are shelves of books on historical Jesus studies that you can find at any university library, written by scholars of all religious persuasions, conservative, liberal, Christian, Jewish, or other, from which you will have no trouble seeing why that is the case.
From a historical critical perspective there may be many debatable details about the life of Jesus. But that he actually lived and was crucified are as rock solid as any fact of ancient history can possibly be.
dannno
01-21-2011, 12:38 PM
And if anybody wants to look into whether the historical person Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, there is no debate. He was. And any article out there that treats that question as debatable isn't worth reading. However, there are shelves of books on historical Jesus studies that you can find at any university library, written by scholars of all religious persuasions, conservative, liberal, Christian, Jewish, or other, from which you will have no trouble seeing why that is the case.
From a historical critical perspective there may be many debatable details about the life of Jesus. But that he actually lived and was crucified are as rock solid as any fact of ancient history can possibly be.
Wait, what are you trying to argue? Didn't you say you haven't seen Zeitgeist?
I guess my next question is, can you name a single historian who documented Jesus' life who was actually around during the time of Jesus? Apparently there are only two.. one was a proven forgery, and the other only SUPPOSEDLY referenced him once, and not directly, and didn't actually say ANYTHING about him.
erowe1
01-21-2011, 12:52 PM
Wait, what are you trying to argue? Didn't you say you haven't seen Zeitgeist?
Correct. I haven't seen it.
I guess my next question is, can you name a single historian who documented Jesus' life who was actually around during the time of Jesus? Apparently there are only two.. one was a proven forgery, and the other only SUPPOSEDLY referenced him once, and not directly, and didn't actually say ANYTHING about him.
There are more than two. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are all written by historians who documented Jesus' life who were around during his time. If there was another common source for Matthew and Luke, which scholars call Q, that would be another. Josephus is a 5th (or 6th). The apostle Paul wouldn't be classified a historian, but he was a contemporary of Jesus who recounted details about the life of the historical Jesus in letters he wrote within 20 years of his crucifixion (including the fact of his crucifixion, the fact that he had brothers and disciples whom Paul knew, the fact that he opposed divorce, the fact that the Christian practice of the Lord's supper is based on a meal Jesus had with his disciples the night before he died, and others). Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, Tacitus, and Mara ben Serapion were all from the next generation and all refer to Jesus as opponents of Christianity. Rabbinic literature also provides references to Jesus from rabbinic traditions that likely come from the second century or earlier.
dannno
01-21-2011, 12:53 PM
If you are even ATTEMPTING to say that such and such happened a certain way and not any other way based on this "most official" document that has been preserved by TPTB for thousands of years, then you are missing the main point of the film that I took away from it. If you think TPTB are trying to get rid of Christianity now, what were they doing thousands of years ago? I don't think the first portion of Zeitgeist disproves Christianity at all. It might disprove a lot of things many Christians take for granted about Christianity. It might prove that the elite hijack people's belief systems and alter them to suit their needs in order to control populations. That isn't the fault of religion, leaders will use anything that people are interested in to control them.
Notice I never said that there weren't ANY historians during the time of Jesus. Maybe there were several, and maybe they captured his life. Then maybe the Romans destroyed all that shit and created a new religion based on what was originally Christianity, but that suited their needs as a method for controlling people. So maybe there are bits and pieces of truth. Maybe you can have a personal relationship with God and receive divine inspiration.. but if you're bent on taking the Bible word for word, I think that is a mistake. I think the passages in the Bible that talk about it being perfect truth and the only true word of God were inserted as a form of control. A way for people to be able to deny evidence they see to the contrary.
dannno
01-21-2011, 12:56 PM
Correct. I haven't seen it.
There are more than two. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are all written by historians who documented Jesus' life who were around during his time. If there was another common source for Matthew and Luke, which scholars call Q, that would be another. Josephus is a 5th (or 6th). The apostle Paul wouldn't be classified a historian, but he was a contemporary of Jesus who recounted details about the life of the historical Jesus in letters he wrote within 20 years of his crucifixion (including the fact of his crucifixion, the fact that he had brothers and disciples whom Paul knew, the fact that he opposed divorce, the fact that the Christian practice of the Lord's supper is based on a meal Jesus had with his disciples the night before he died, and others). Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, Tacitus, and Mara ben Serapion were all from the next generation and all refer to Jesus as opponents of Christianity. Rabbinic literature also provides references to Jesus from rabbinic traditions that likely come from the second century or earlier.
Hmmm, might have to go back and checkout the first one again, I'm not so sure about those historians for MMLJ.. Any historians document Paul by any chance?
erowe1
01-21-2011, 01:02 PM
Any historians document Paul by any chance?
Luke does in the book of Acts. But since we have Paul's own writings, most scholars would prioritize those over anything written by others (including Luke) for studying the historical Paul.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Anyway, I still recommend Zeitgeist 1, erowe1, unless you're a ridiculously busy person I don't see it as a waste of time. The first part isn't even that long, plus it is really more informational and contextual rather than trying to convince you of something specific.
If 0 is atheist and 10 is a true believer in religion, and a 5 is agnostic, then I went from a 3 to a 5+ after watching Zeitgeist, so I find it pretty ironic how everybody says that it debunks Christianity.. for me it made it much more plausible. It is a pretty incredible film, the 9/11 portion is solid, and the last third of the film is all about our monetary system, the NAU and the control grid.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:12 PM
Luke does in the book of Acts. But since we have Paul's own writings, most scholars would prioritize those over anything written by others (including Luke) for studying the historical Paul.
Sources
The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1-4).[26] Critical scholarship generally holds to the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel.
Q source (sometimes referred to as Q document, or simply Q) comes from the German Quelle, which means "source". It is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. Q is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark (i.e., the blue material in the chart). This ancient text supposedly contained the logia or quotations from Jesus.[1] However, the existence of a highly treasured dominical document, being omitted from all the early Church catalogs and going unmentioned by all the fathers of the early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.[2]
Hmmmm..
It just seems so contrived, I mean, I'm not saying Jesus never lived and his life wasn't documented, it just seems curious that everything which does exist about him is contrived.. and to be honest, when I see information being hidden and contrived about something, it piques my interest. If the elite destroyed all these documents about Jesus and then contrived up new documents based on Jesus, then that makes me want to know more about Jesus than anything. I don't see why people who are currently devoutly Christian can't see it that way.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:15 PM
I mean, don't you want to know how the elite altered your religion, from the VERY beginnings?
angelatc
01-21-2011, 01:20 PM
I haven't seen it either. But do explain the system of money they seek.
Romulus
01-21-2011, 01:24 PM
They way I see it.. if you're not willing to watch something, then you must not be very secure in your beliefs.
dannno
01-21-2011, 01:29 PM
I haven't seen it either. But do explain the system of money they seek.
No money.. they want full automation, automated skyfarms that are connected to pipes that harvest and transfer food around the globe.. mag lev trains that allow free travel.. they want to do an assessment of the world's resources so we can live sustainably.
It really does seem more like science fiction than reality.
Of course NONE of that stuff is ever mentioned in the first film, which has nothing to do with their movement.. that film actually brought a lot of people to Ron Paul.
erowe1
01-21-2011, 01:30 PM
They way I see it.. if you're not willing to watch something, then you must not be very secure in your beliefs.
The way I see it, if I eat a free sample of something, and I can tell with my first bite that it's nasty, then I'd be foolish to have it for a meal when I could have something better instead. If you're going to hawk something like the Jesus myth hypothesis, you might as well say that our entire existence is a hallucination and the Matrix movies are documentaries.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 01:34 PM
Anybody who wants to look into whether this mythical person Chrishna (aka Krishna) was crucified or merely shot in the foot, there is an article here which shows both sides of the debate:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mistic/krishna02.htm
Information used to be a lot easier to change or control a hundred, two hundred, 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000+ years ago. Why would there be a lot of evidence confirming something like this one way or another? Especially among oral traditions being passed down. I don't see Chrishna being shot in the foot as any more valid information than Chrishna being crucified after all I've seen at read.
You are correct that old information can be manipulated. That is why written traditions are more acceptable than oral ones. You cannot carbon date an oral tradition. You cannot say for sure that the oral tradition predates the introduction of Christianity into India. Maybe it did? Or maybe someone decided to manipulate the Hindu oral tradition in order to make Christianity more appealing to them? That happened to other religions. When it comes to ancient texts they can be dated for age and verified. Saying that an oral tradition is a good as a written one is like saying that hearsay is as good as hard evidence. George W. Bush said "they hate us for our freedom" so that must be true regardless of the physical evidence.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 01:37 PM
They way I see it.. if you're not willing to watch something, then you must not be very secure in your beliefs.
I watched part 1 all the way through. I went back, did my own research and came to my own conclusion that it was bunk. I've never watched parts 2 and 3 because I already don't buy the official story on 9/11 and I already know the federal reserve is a sham. I guess I should just to be sure they haven't screwed up those parts as badly as they did part 1.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 01:51 PM
Anyway, I still recommend Zeitgeist 1, erowe1, unless you're a ridiculously busy person I don't see it as a waste of time. The first part isn't even that long, plus it is really more informational and contextual rather than trying to convince you of something specific.
If 0 is atheist and 10 is a true believer in religion, and a 5 is agnostic, then I went from a 3 to a 5+ after watching Zeitgeist, so I find it pretty ironic how everybody says that it debunks Christianity.. for me it made it much more plausible. It is a pretty incredible film, the 9/11 portion is solid, and the last third of the film is all about our monetary system, the NAU and the control grid.
Hey Danno, did you see where I wrote this?
A "new" religion must take the place of the "old" (Christianity). Only theosophy isn't new at all. It's roots go back to ancient Babylon and beyond. The movement will grow for sure, especially considering who is likely behind it. But, like all socialism, it will fail to deliver it's promises because of the inherent inefficiencies of central planning (even voluntary central planning). At that point, those who don't go along will be blamed for "mucking things up". And that's when the voluntariness will end.
Compare that with this prediction in the Bible.
Matthew 24:24
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Zeitgeist isn't about making you an atheist. Far from it. It's about getting you to accept a new version of Christ. One that seems much more "believable" to you, and one that is compatible with the goals of the people behind the Venus project. Christianity is to diverse and splintered now to control. But if you tear down Christ and remold him...if some new "solar messiah" appears on the scene promoting some new "oral tradition" then the goals are much more reachable. Indeed if you tear down the concept of the old Christ the new Christ can be fashioned to be acceptable to the Muslim, the Jew, the Buddhist or fill in the blank. A true global religion.
jmdrake
01-21-2011, 01:54 PM
No money.. they want full automation, automated skyfarms that are connected to pipes that harvest and transfer food around the globe.. mag lev trains that allow free travel.. they want to do an assessment of the world's resources so we can live sustainably.
It really does seem more like science fiction than reality.
Of course NONE of that stuff is ever mentioned in the first film, which has nothing to do with their movement.. that film actually brought a lot of people to Ron Paul.
The first film capitalized on an already booming Internet 9/11 - anti fed subculture. It vectored (where is InterestedParticipant when you need him?) people away from the Alex Jones "the luciferans are really behind this" vector. I met a mason online that hates Alex Jones and loves Zeitgeist for this very reason.
ClayTrainor
01-21-2011, 02:48 PM
No money.. they want full automation, automated skyfarms that are connected to pipes that harvest and transfer food around the globe.. mag lev trains that allow free travel.. they want to do an assessment of the world's resources so we can live sustainably.
It really does seem more like science fiction than reality.
It is a sci-fi fantasy, for sure. I have yet to meet a Zeitgeist follower who take the Economic Calculation Problem seriously. It's a problem they choose to ignore as they chant about some kind of "resource based economy". Well... how exactly do they plan on rationally allocating those resources, if they don't have a plan on how to calculate their value in any way? I had one Zeitgeist advocate tell me that resources would be organized much like they are in an RTS game, lmfao! An RTS game is like a Tyrant simulator. These guys tend to be completely economically illiterate, as far as I can tell.
They seem to blame the very idea of scarcity on money. In reality it is scarcity that causes money. Money is like ration coupons for that scarcity. You do not eliminate the scarcity by eliminating the ration coupons. Yes, if all wealth was infinite (including massages, haircuts etc), you could theoretically do away with money and create the Venus Project. But until you invent the machines that create that infinite wealth, it's all just fairy dust wishful thinking.
I appreciate the first Zeitgeist film for getting me interested in a lot of important issues, but I do not respect the conclusions of this "movement" in the slightest. Their faulty logic inevitably leads to some ugly form of statism. Without free-markets, how exactly do they plan on managing and distributing resources?
IceForester
01-21-2011, 03:10 PM
Imo theres a lot of good ideas and material for reflection and debate in the VP ZM, and I share many of their views although I remain critical of and disagree with others (but not the type of free market angled criticism expressed by some here).
I dont have the time to go into details atm, but would be interested in people's views about prerequisites for alternate societies to exist in a relatively harmoneous way.
One of the criticism I have is the Global aspirations, it aint going to happen, any more that a Libertarian free market paradise is likely to, and since many people with very divergent views are stuck in the same statist entities we end up mutually hindering each other with the notion that the BEST system, which is what ever we think is, ought to be THE system for everyone, thus making sure we are stuck in the horrible status quos everyone hates (except bankers and the top 1%).
What are basic ideas that would help honest people that want a different system (because they see it as better) and that they could agree on, while disagreeing completely with how the other societies are managed?
Ex: Should regions be related to the form of society, and if so how large do these need to be (city, state, small country, huge country)?
angelatc
01-21-2011, 03:19 PM
No money.. they want full automation, automated skyfarms that are connected to pipes that harvest and transfer food around the globe.. mag lev trains that allow free travel.. they want to do an assessment of the world's resources so we can live sustainably.
It really does seem more like science fiction than reality.
.
And that doesn't sound like some bizarro socialistic "a world without money" Utopian vision to you?
angelatc
01-21-2011, 03:23 PM
The way I see it, if I eat a free sample of something, and I can tell with my first bite that it's nasty, then I'd be foolish to have it for a meal when I could have something better instead. If you're going to hawk something like the Jesus myth hypothesis, you might as well say that our entire existence is a hallucination and the Matrix movies are documentaries.
Yes. This movie doesn't do a damned thing to help the revolution, and now that Loughner's name is attached to it the stigma will be even worse. But there's no point trying to explain that to the disciples of the various movements trying to attach themselves (and their agendas) to Ron Paul's quest.
1 was good
first half of 2 was good
second half of 2 was meh...
100% agreed. 1 was very well done as was the first part of 2, but the second half had me asking WTF?! The assertion that sufficient technology will change human nature such that there will no longer people who work to dominate the rest is ludicrous. The reasoning was very weak on many fronts.
Travlyr
01-21-2011, 04:13 PM
What are basic ideas that would help honest people that want a different system (because they see it as better) and that they could agree on, while disagreeing completely with how the other societies are managed?
Honesty. Read and share the two links I have in my signature. If the people world-wide could win honesty in everyday trading, then 70%, or more, of the world's problems would end, imo. That is the power.
dannno
01-21-2011, 04:25 PM
The way I see it, if I eat a free sample of something, and I can tell with my first bite that it's nasty, then I'd be foolish to have it for a meal when I could have something better instead. If you're going to hawk something like the Jesus myth hypothesis, you might as well say that our entire existence is a hallucination and the Matrix movies are documentaries.
What if you got a sampler basket, you tried the first item in the basket and it wasn't your favorite (how do you know it's nasty if you haven't even watched the religious section? It's extremely intriguing whether it changes your philosophy or not..). Are you going to avoid everything else in the basket even if it's all really good?
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. [/i]
Zeitgeist isn't about making you an atheist. Far from it. It's about getting you to accept a new version of Christ. One that seems much more "believable" to you, and one that is compatible with the goals of the people behind the Venus project.
Well it didn't work very well, most people who were big fans of Zeitgeist 1 went to the liberty movement and weren't big fans of Zeitgeist 2. I don't see any connection between the first part of part 1 and the venus project, other than that it could potentially make a weak Christian question their religion. I don't expect any Christians here to question their religion as a whole after seeing the film, but perhaps some aspects of it.
And that doesn't sound like some bizarro socialistic "a world without money" Utopian vision to you?
Well ya, but NONE of that stuff comes up in the first film.
Yes. This movie doesn't do a damned thing to help the revolution, and now that Loughner's name is attached to it the stigma will be even worse. But there's no point trying to explain that to the disciples of the various movements trying to attach themselves (and their agendas) to Ron Paul's quest.
You are associating the "agenda" in Zeitgeist 2 with Zeitgeist 1 which it has nothing to do with.. The first film was EXCELLENT at helping the revolution because it is an amazing educational tool.. There is a section with Ron Paul that educates people about our monetary system among many other liberty oriented topics, which you will never know because you refuse to watch it. But it did drive a lot of people to liberty.. and people who are apart of the Zeitgeist movement constantly have to explain to people that Zeitgeist 2 is about the movement, and has nothing to do with Zeitgeist 1, except that they both delve into our monetary system.
erowe1
01-21-2011, 04:56 PM
What if you got a sampler basket, you tried the first item in the basket and it wasn't your favorite (how do you know it's nasty if you haven't even watched the religious section? It's extremely intriguing whether it changes your philosophy or not..). Are you going to avoid everything else in the basket even if it's all really good?
Yeah, I know. I've been too hard on it. I gave an opinion about a documentary I know very little about based on cursory research, and got myself sucked into a debate I don't really want to be in.
But the line of argument about how Christianity as we know it is the result of TPTB getting rid of the parts they didn't like and replacing them with stuff that helped give them more power over the masses is something I've seen plenty of in various forms. Any time I browse books on gnostic gospels or the Dead Sea Scrolls at Barnes and Noble, half the books are marketed with lines like, "These are the books they didn't want you to know about," as though they contain the key to re-write early Christian history, which they never do. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine, so I've become inclined to prejudge things when I see that.
...it's really not very practical to move to this type of system overnight.
It might not be practical in any event. One thing I can promise you is that if Start Trek style replicator technology ever becomes real such that everyone becomes an instant trillionaire, people will still murder and steal from each other. It is in the human fabric for some of us to do this. Some do it just because they feel they can. Some because the need the thrill. Technology will not completely solve our problems, and one can never know how a given technology might contribute to them down the road.
I can see if we turned to a free market and became really wealthy,
In comparison to what? If everyone can have essentially anything they want through technological provisioning, then they are all the same in that regard, are they not?
had everything we needed and everything setup to support us foodwise, maybe everybody voluntarily agrees to work a couple days a year on maintenance of this or that, why would anybody desire ownership of the factories or even selling things if everything we'd need is already being produced through automation or voluntarily by individuals?
That sword has two edges and the other edge is called "boredom". There is more than one personality type that not only craves work but must have it in order to remain healthy. Take that away from them and it would not surprise me a whit if one such person would blow a fuse and go about killing people in a frenzy of apeshit need.
Money could become obsolete..
Technology will have to be far and away more advanced than it is currently. It would have to be just about at the level of self maintaining and able to take raw materials in one form and magically transform them into another. I do not see that happening for a very long time to come, barring space aliens or some other quantum advance in our understanding of the material universe.
property ownership could maaaybee become obsolete..
This I seriously doubt. It flies in the face of everything we know about human makeup. The fact of sentimental value is cause enough to suspect that people will not, in some respects, change no matter what advances may come to us. The child who loses his sister in a car accident will likely cling to that teddy bear she gave him, and no amount of coaxing will talk him out of it. People will still be people and much of what they do is NOT motivated by a dearth of material possessions. Why did Wynona Ryder (sp??) go out and shoplift when she had millions? HUMAN NATURE DOES NOT CHANGE.
but you can't force that stuff on people, you need to create the wealth first then live off your savings and investments..
If I am reading you right, which I may not be, methinks you may have this a bit wrong. If you made everyone a billionaire today - just gave them the money, we would still need servants of one sort or another because work would still have to be done. Self sustaining technology is the only thing that will free us from material toil, and as I wrote, that is not likely to come in our great grandchildren's life times.
All this fantasizing may be fun, but the best solution we have right here, right now, is to set people free and for all of us to cop a better attitude about what is important in our lives. In my opinion, of course.
Fredom101
01-21-2011, 06:10 PM
Hey Danno, did you see where I wrote this?
A "new" religion must take the place of the "old" (Christianity). Only theosophy isn't new at all. It's roots go back to ancient Babylon and beyond. The movement will grow for sure, especially considering who is likely behind it. But, like all socialism, it will fail to deliver it's promises because of the inherent inefficiencies of central planning (even voluntary central planning). At that point, those who don't go along will be blamed for "mucking things up". And that's when the voluntariness will end.
Compare that with this prediction in the Bible.
Matthew 24:24
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Zeitgeist isn't about making you an atheist. Far from it. It's about getting you to accept a new version of Christ. One that seems much more "believable" to you, and one that is compatible with the goals of the people behind the Venus project. Christianity is to diverse and splintered now to control. But if you tear down Christ and remold him...if some new "solar messiah" appears on the scene promoting some new "oral tradition" then the goals are much more reachable. Indeed if you tear down the concept of the old Christ the new Christ can be fashioned to be acceptable to the Muslim, the Jew, the Buddhist or fill in the blank. A true global religion.
Not sure if you saw Zeitgeist 2 JM, but at the end he is very clear that he is against ALL religions (as well as governments). His idea for getting rid of money is of course insane, but he nails it when he discusses getting rid of the power structures that control us.
dannno
01-21-2011, 06:28 PM
If I am reading you right, which I may not be, methinks you may have this a bit wrong. If you made everyone a billionaire today - just gave them the money, we would still need servants of one sort or another because work would still have to be done. Self sustaining technology is the only thing that will free us from material toil, and as I wrote, that is not likely to come in our great grandchildren's life times.
I gave you a +rep for your post, I honestly don't know if money would become obsolete in a free society with a lot of technology.. but that is the only way I see that it could happen successfully and without coercion, which is the argument I pose to people in the Zeitgeist movement.
As far as that part of my post, I meant in a free society would help to create self sustaining technology, opposed to the system of control we have today that is highly regulated and dependent on certain forms of energy.
jmdrake
01-24-2011, 08:43 PM
Not sure if you saw Zeitgeist 2 JM, but at the end he is very clear that he is against ALL religions (as well as governments). His idea for getting rid of money is of course insane, but he nails it when he discusses getting rid of the power structures that control us.
Sure. That's what he said. That's also what Karl Marx said. Don't believe everything somebody says. Here's what you are missing. The whole point of ZG addendum is to push a new global order. That order is supposedly "voluntary". But in order for it to be worldwide there HAS to be a control system. ZG isn't pushing to get rid of control systems. It's pushing to get rid of competing control systems. Again, research theosophy. Research Krishnamutri (featured in ZG addendum). Realize that there is a religion being pushed in this film that claims to be anti religion. And look at hazek's attitude toward me. It angers him that I'm "young" (he thinks I am anyway) yet I cannot be molded the way he'd like me to be molded. That's the same type of thought process that led to the killing fields in Cambodia or the cultural revolution in China. Those who were too "old" or too "intellectual" to go along with the "new order" had to be culled. In the ZG world there is supposed to be this technological infrastructure that takes care of all our needs and "allocates resources". So who decides how those resources are allocated? Who pays for the building of this grand and wonderful technological infrastructure in the first place?
HazyHusky420
01-24-2011, 08:52 PM
I really liked the first Zeitgeist. Have no complaints whatsoever.
Only seen clips of the second one and all I can say is that it was a disappointment. I mean seriously, getting rid of money? You need some mean of exchange!
Whether or not the third will be a disappointment I don't know. All I can say is that whatever Alex Jones says will be hilarious. He'll probably have Mark Dice on to discuss how it's connected to the devil and the subliminal messages found on Judas Priest records.
Matthew Zak
01-24-2011, 09:13 PM
I just finished watching the third Zeitgeist.
This one explores human nature and how we are conditioned into this system, then talks about the economic and monetary paradigm that we live in which by it's nature is not designed to be "economic" but rather depends on our wastefulness for it's own benefit. The sicker and less efficient our lives are, the healthier the profiteer. Ironically we are brain washed from birth to think that this system is the best there is and lays out a pretty good argument as to why it's not.
Obviously this is critical of free markets, and unapologetically so. The film offers The Venus Project as a solution, where we must use a computerized global resource management system to keep track of what is available and never using more than that. In other words, a strictly responsible real world "economy".
The film also brings in Mr. Rupert, and summarizes the basic argument in the documentary "Collapse" which points out how our entire way of life is totally dependent on oil, which sooner or later, for better or for worse, is absolutely unsustainable.
To answer the question of those who wonder what incentive people will have to work -- Joseph believes that volunteers will come out of the wood work to help sustain a society that is actually designed for our best interests. He also says that laziness is not a byproduct of having no responsibilities, but rather that laziness is a byproduct of a meaningless and unhealthy way of life perpetuated by the system it's self. In this "Utopian" world he envisions, the Nikola Teslas of the world would re-emerge, because profit was never the insentive for the mad geniuses who have brought this world so many new technologies.
I'm leaving a lot out, but that's what I could recall at the moment.
Romulus
01-24-2011, 09:48 PM
hell if they aren't still pushing that damn Venus Project again..lol
I'll give it a watch even though it sounds like a good amount of rubbish.
Fredom101
01-24-2011, 09:51 PM
I just finished watching the third Zeitgeist.
This one explores human nature and how we are conditioned into this system, then talks about the economic and monetary paradigm that we live in which by it's nature is not designed to be "economic" but rather depends on our wastefulness for it's own benefit. The sicker and less efficient our lives are, the healthier the profiteer. Ironically we are brain washed from birth to think that this system is the best there is and lays out a pretty good argument as to why it's not.
Obviously this is critical of free markets, and unapologetically so. The film offers The Venus Project as a solution, where we must use a computerized global resource management system to keep track of what is available and never using more than that. In other words, a strictly responsible real world "economy".
The film also brings in Mr. Rupert, and summarizes the basic argument in the documentary "Collapse" which points out how our entire way of life is totally dependent on oil, which sooner or later, for better or for worse, is absolutely unsustainable.
To answer the question of those who wonder what incentive people will have to work -- Joseph believes that volunteers will come out of the wood work to help sustain a society that is actually designed for our best interests. He also says that laziness is not a byproduct of having no responsibilities, but rather that laziness is a byproduct of a meaningless and unhealthy way of life perpetuated by the system it's self. In this "Utopian" world he envisions, the Nikola Teslas of the world would re-emerge, because profit was never the insentive for the mad geniuses who have brought this world so many new technologies.
I'm leaving a lot out, but that's what I could recall at the moment.
Peter Joseph certainly loves his central planning! :(
Romulus
01-24-2011, 09:51 PM
I really liked the first Zeitgeist. Have no complaints whatsoever.
Only seen clips of the second one and all I can say is that it was a disappointment. I mean seriously, getting rid of money? You need some mean of exchange!
Whether or not the third will be a disappointment I don't know. All I can say is that whatever Alex Jones says will be hilarious. He'll probably have Mark Dice on to discuss how it's connected to the devil and the subliminal messages found on Judas Priest records.
You should at least watch all of the 2nd one, just so you can make up your mind about it. The first part was good, then it goes off into a dream world that would never exist, basically because you can't take competition from human nature, no more than you can take the web from a spider.
The 3rd sounds like its own spin on refining that message and that people would not 'need' to compete, since we can go to the computerized NWO vending machine for food, sex and a house.
dannno
01-24-2011, 10:14 PM
One thing that is interesting is that after the premier of the film, I was talking to my roommate the organizer and one of the major financial backers of the showing.. I was talking to this other guy about liberty and told him that he was an anarchist.. he paused for a moment and turned to my roomate and was like, "Uhhh.. are we anarchists? Hmmm, I.... guess we are huh.." and then proceeded to seem to accept this fact as I brought up issues of state power, etc..
The film is in fact very anti-establishment. They said there's no reason you couldn't farm yourself or express yourself however you wanted in this society. They don't believe in prisons, which may put some people here off, but I strongly urge you to watch the the film, particularly the first half, to understand why.
I just finished watching the third Zeitgeist.
This one explores human nature and how we are conditioned into this system
THIS portion takes up a significant part of the film, and is absolutely fascinating. I think everybody who is comfortable with the liberty philosophy should watch the Zeitgeist series. I'm not a huge fan of the anti-montery central planning portion, but all three of these films bring up a lot of excellent information. They also bring up a lot of great technologies which are not used today due to regulations, standards, subsidies, etc.. The rest that you won't agree with is fine, just think of it as a mental exercise so you can convince people of freedom, knowing what they know, so you know what the best strategy is.
Great review of the film, +rep
Edit: Ooops, out of rep, I'll try to hit you up another time.
HazyHusky420
01-24-2011, 10:20 PM
You should at least watch all of the 2nd one, just so you can make up your mind about it. The first part was good, then it goes off into a dream world that would never exist, basically because you can't take competition from human nature, no more than you can take the web from a spider.
The 3rd sounds like its own spin on refining that message and that people would not 'need' to compete, since we can go to the computerized NWO vending machine for food, sex and a house.
The idea of not needing a mean of exchange immediately tells me how utopian is. Even your average Marxist would disagree.
dannno
01-24-2011, 10:51 PM
The idea of not needing a mean of exchange immediately tells me how utopian is. Even your average Marxist would disagree.
Ya, but the rest of the information is fascinating, it's still worth watching.
Unless you're scared of being converted to such nonsense :rolleyes:
Bwuaaaacckk bwuuaackk bwwwuuuuacckk......bwuaaackkk bwuacckk bwuaccckkk..
eric_cartman
01-24-2011, 11:27 PM
i just finished watching their third film. it was interesting and fun to watch in some parts, and absolutely painful to watch in others. they have no understanding of free market economics and their solution of a "resource based economy" is totally ridiculous. the film as a whole is complete crap...
i did really enjoy the ending... i will not give it away for those who haven't seen it yet... but if you just watch the ending as if it were not part of the film, and didn't carry a message with it... it would be a pretty cool little scene. the film is very well made and very well produced... the production quality is quite high, especially in certain sections like the very end.
it's a really long movie (2hr,40min) but i eventually got through it all. a lot of parts in this movie really pissed me off because of the way they unfairly criticize the free market and basically lump the free market in with our current monetary system and pretend as if the system we have now is the perfect example of a free market. some of the stuff they say is correct and are accurate criticisms of our current system... but some of the stuff is just factually and logically incorrect.
they claim that a rich person who has a CD yielding 4% is actually "stealing" money from the poor person who "needed to borrow that money to buy a car". obviously my response to this would be that if the rich person did not save some of his money and invest it for interest, there would be no money for the poor person to borrow... so the poor person would not even have the option to purchase a car by borrowing money.
they also showed old footage of Milton Friedman getting asked a question where some kid brought up an example of an old man having his electric cut off because he didn't pay the bill and he died from the cold. Friedman said that it was the responsibility of friends, family, churches, etc. to pay the old man's bill. The filmmakers disagreed with Friedman and basically suggested the power company should have provided free electricity. Actually, they never really answered the question of who should have paid for this man's bill, it sounded to me like they thought the power company should have paid, but maybe they believe some sort of government should have paid.
and in their new Utopian world... it sounds like there is no government... they don't mention having courts, or police or jails or anything. everyone basically fills out surveys of what they want... and then volunteers program the machines to make the goods that people want... and then equally distribute them. but there is no private property, although it seems like everyone gets some sort of house to live in that is built by machines (so basically everyone gets the same house). So supposedly, volunteers build these futuristic machines that go around building houses automatically, and i guess they do that for everyone. there is no private property or private ownership of goods.... however it seems that whatever is produced is "shared"... so there seems to be no limit to the stuff you can have. i think this would obviously result in shortages of goods, because we can't produce goods to satisfy our unlimited wants. there's also no money or medium of exchange... everything is free and everyone shares stuff. so you can't have your own car, but you get access to the new magnetic trains and they'll send you a remote controlled car driven by a satellite that you can take on your journey. anyways... i think you understand what i mean.... basically these guys are total fruitcakes and their plan makes absolutely no sense. they plan to conserve resources, while at the same time building all these new cities and somehow making all these products for everyone... meanwhile, no one is forced to work, and working does not entitle you to any additional benefits. So first, they need to make all the capital to build these self sustaining cities (that have farms, entertainment centers, residential areas, etc.) then i guess they're going to start making these new cities... that will be powered by windmills and solar panels and other "green" technology.... and they feel that they'll be able to produce enough stuff to lift everyone out of poverty and that everyone will live in abundance and that we will do this without depleting the earth's resources or causing any pollution. so ya... their plan is totally laughable. but they don't really mention who the people in charge are... they basically say that a computer is in charge... but who programs the computer? it seems to me like they would have some sort of unelected group of scientists deciding how to program this computer and how to build these series of Utopian cities for everyone... they make no mention of how disputes would be settled on how to organize the means of production or who would be in charge and who would get to delegate the work. i hope too many people don't get brainwashed by this garbage that promises that they get to live in a futuristic city and never have to work again and they can just be happy and do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.
they also lumped Mises in with other mainstream economists and basically said that everyone is wrong in their economic theories... that really pissed me off too.
so ya, this movie sucked
Anti Federalist
01-24-2011, 11:44 PM
You know what bothers me the most jmdrake? That you are young. That's the one thing that really really reaaaally ticks me off when I read your posts. Your age.
Because you are not some 60+ year old fart who probably already lived his life and can't really think anymore but you are young and you should be at the peak of your brain capability and yet you answer every single unknown with a single answer - religion. God I wish you'd see through this bullshit, I really do. I can't wait the day when we're evolved so far that the whole planet is able to reason and understand the methods of reason and understand that there is no such thing as god.
But I know I can't change you. It's part of your reality. I just hope the day you're on your deathbed you won't look at your life, scared that it's finally over, suddenly realizing how afraid you are of it ending and maybe, just maybe catching yourself think that nothing waits for you once the life energy leaves your human body and you'll look back and feel just sick about how ignorant you lived your life, how closed your eyes were and how much beauty and joy you've missed because of it. I really hope that doesn't happen to you.
Wow, hate filled collectivism FTL.
-rep
If, in your rant, the word "jews", "*******", "muzzies" or any other pejorative term, other than ones describing old Christian farts (Ron Paul?) had been used, you'd have been banned.
ClayTrainor
01-24-2011, 11:47 PM
i just finished watching their third film. it was interesting and fun to watch in some parts, and absolutely painful to watch in others. they have no understanding of free market economics and their solution of a "resource based economy" is totally ridiculous. the film as a whole is complete crap...
i did really enjoy the ending... i will not give it away for those who haven't seen it yet... but if you just watch the ending as if it were not part of the film, and didn't carry a message with it... it would be a pretty cool little scene. the film is very well made and very well produced... the production quality is quite high, especially in certain sections like the very end.
it's a really long movie (2hr,40min) but i eventually got through it all. a lot of parts in this movie really pissed me off because of the way they unfairly criticize the free market and basically lump the free market in with our current monetary system and pretend as if the system we have now is the perfect example of a free market. some of the stuff they say is correct and are accurate criticisms of our current system... but some of the stuff is just factually and logically incorrect.
they claim that a rich person who has a CD yielding 4% is actually "stealing" money from the poor person who "needed to borrow that money to buy a car". obviously my response to this would be that if the rich person did not save some of his money and invest it for interest, there would be no money for the poor person to borrow... so the poor person would not even have the option to purchase a car by borrowing money.
they also showed old footage of Milton Friedman getting asked a question where some kid brought up an example of an old man having his electric cut off because he didn't pay the bill and he died from the cold. Friedman said that it was the responsibility of friends, family, churches, etc. to pay the old man's bill. The filmmakers disagreed with Friedman and basically suggested the power company should have provided free electricity. Actually, they never really answered the question of who should have paid for this man's bill, it sounded to me like they thought the power company should have paid, but maybe they believe some sort of government should have paid.
and in their new Utopian world... it sounds like there is no government... they don't mention having courts, or police or jails or anything. everyone basically fills out surveys of what they want... and then volunteers program the machines to make the goods that people want... and then equally distribute them. but there is no private property, although it seems like everyone gets some sort of house to live in that is built by machines (so basically everyone gets the same house). So supposedly, volunteers build these futuristic machines that go around building houses automatically, and i guess they do that for everyone. there is no private property or private ownership of goods.... however it seems that whatever is produced is "shared"... so there seems to be no limit to the stuff you can have. i think this would obviously result in shortages of goods, because we can't produce goods to satisfy our unlimited wants. there's also no money or medium of exchange... everything is free and everyone shares stuff. so you can't have your own car, but you get access to the new magnetic trains and they'll send you a remote controlled car driven by a satellite that you can take on your journey. anyways... i think you understand what i mean.... basically these guys are total fruitcakes and their plan makes absolutely no sense. they plan to conserve resources, while at the same time building all these new cities and somehow making all these products for everyone... meanwhile, no one is forced to work, and working does not entitle you to any additional benefits. So first, they need to make all the capital to build these self sustaining cities (that have farms, entertainment centers, residential areas, etc.) then i guess they're going to start making these new cities... that will be powered by windmills and solar panels and other "green" technology.... and they feel that they'll be able to produce enough stuff to lift everyone out of poverty and that everyone will live in abundance and that we will do this without depleting the earth's resources or causing any pollution. so ya... their plan is totally laughable. but they don't really mention who the people in charge are... they basically say that a computer is in charge... but who programs the computer? it seems to me like they would have some sort of unelected group of scientists deciding how to program this computer and how to build these series of Utopian cities for everyone... they make no mention of how disputes would be settled on how to organize the means of production or who would be in charge and who would get to delegate the work. i hope too many people don't get brainwashed by this garbage that promises that they get to live in a futuristic city and never have to work again and they can just be happy and do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.
they also lumped Mises in with other mainstream economists and basically said that everyone is wrong in their economic theories... that really pissed me off too.
so ya, this movie sucked
Thank you very much for this review. Very detailed, and I suspect that I would agree with you if I took the time to watch it, based on what I saw in the previous films. Thanks for confirming that I shouldn't waste my time.
Vessol
01-24-2011, 11:54 PM
Well I'll watch it. Either here later as I have the time, or later this week. I'll post my thoughts about it.
DamianTV
01-25-2011, 02:40 AM
When the hell is this stupid video gonna get released online (legally) so we can all watch it?
dannno
01-25-2011, 02:42 AM
When the hell is this stupid video gonna get released online (legally) so we can all watch it?
Tomorrow, 'legally', but there has to be a torrent or something somewhere.. the dvd is like 10 feet from me in the next room.
dannno
01-25-2011, 02:50 AM
Thank you very much for this review. Very detailed, and I suspect that I would agree with you if I took the time to watch it, based on what I saw in the previous films. Thanks for confirming that I shouldn't waste my time.
NOO!!!
I admit cartman wrote a great review of the BAD parts of the film, but if you are a fan of Molyneux, you should REALLY watch this!! Not for their solution, but for all the other amazing information they present!! cartman didn't get into the entire first third of the movie at all, which is right in line with a lot of what Molyneux talks about regarding raising children.
Plus the ending scene is AWESOME if it were put right at the end of a film we liked about the Federal Reserve and statism..
Plus the technology stuff is always fun to watch.
They are anarchists, there is no government, no force.. their idea of no private property doesn't mean you can't have stuff, it means you can't hoard stuff that other people might need within the confines of their venus project zone to gain advantage.. but you can, say, have a farm or garden or whatever and express yourself artistically or do pretty much anything.. It's kinda ridiculous, but still very much worth watching for all of the other great info that they have in there.
Again, I recommend this to anybody comfortable in the liberty philosophy, it's not like you won't recognize the bs.. and I have recommended it to a select few friends with very strong warnings that some of the films views on economics are completely bogus, but a lot of the information they present is excellent..
eric_cartman
01-25-2011, 03:19 AM
^^^ ya, the first half hour or 40 minutes was sort of like a nature vs. nurture debate or genetics vs. environment. they concluded that it was nurture/environment.
so they were correct in this point, and some of it was interesting... but the whole movie comes out sounding really pretentious and this part of the film is more of a social psychology film.
i thought the first zeitgeist was really awesome... i had never heard of that religious stuff in the first part of it... some people say that part was BS, but whatever... kind of interesting. but i loved the second and third parts of the first movie because they talked about 9/11 and the north american union and rfid chips and all this hardcore new world order stuff. and i really liked the first part of their second movie because it did a great job at explaining how our monetary system works (though they made some mistakes i think)... i like john perkins a lot also. then the second part of their second film was this resource based economy crap. that's why i was pretty disappointed with this third film because they didn't really expose anything or talk about anything of value. the valid points they made about economics were all mixed in with all their lies that none of it is really valuable. so ya... some of it was interesting... the ending was really cool... but so much of the film was just nonsense that it's really a waste compared to what it could have been if they had done it in the spirit of their first movie and stayed away from this venus project BS.
eric_cartman
01-25-2011, 03:24 AM
though i suppose i'm sort of biased... i just finished making a series of documentaries myself. i think my third movie, Global Hostile Takeover is a hell of a lot better than this Zeitgeist crap (though obviously the production quality of mine sucks in comparison).
check my films out on my website if someone's interested. My third movie, Global Hostile Takeover, has lots of Ron Paul in there.
http://www.underoccupation.com
Sentient Void
01-25-2011, 10:43 AM
So I'm almost halfway through the movie as of right now... and so far I found Part 1 pretty interesting, and mostly agree with it. At the same time, the whole thing about nature vs nurture being a false dichotomy (when in fact they are both interdependent factors that effect eachother) isn't something new to me - I've felt this way all along.
The second part is basically one giant fallacious strawman attack on the free market and capitalism, with a bunch of little economic fallacies thrown into the mix (broken window fallacies left and right [in the way he talked about the health care industry and war], claiming Adam Smith was talking about God when he mentioned the 'invisible hand', when he was in fact talking about market forces that lead to quality, production, and an efficient use of scarce resources, *not* God, amongst others).
He is *not* talking about an actual free market economy or capitalism - he is talking about our fallacious and destructive *Keynesian economic system* (*not* a free market) which leads to corporatism, wage-slavery, a wasteful consumption-based economy, and massive barriers to entry (intense regulation, regulatory agencies, subsidies, bailouts, etc) into the market that reduce or eliminate competition and innovation that would actually raise the standard of living. A legitimate free market, or even something close to it, would avoid these issues. it is only with the help of government that this shit happens. Impossible without it.
Also, GDP, CPI, etc are all fallacious government numbers which ultimately hold no real value and based on economically ignorant grounds. Yet these are attacked as proponents of free market as well. Absurd.
Dont know what the third part is about. But overall very good production quality, well organized, interesting, etc. I just really wish the guy would actually fucking *READ* and understand Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat, et al before jumping on the 'private property' or 'money' is evil train. No. *Initial aggression* is evil, and is the root of all evil. Money is just a goddamned medium of exchange. Capitalism, in and of itself, is just a voluntary exchange of goods.
If Part 3 is going to go on about the Venus Project I'm gonna punch someone. Damn this is frustrating.
Travlyr
01-25-2011, 10:48 AM
If Part 3 is going to go on about the Venus Project I'm gonna punch someone. Damn this is frustrating.
lulz...
hazek
01-25-2011, 10:54 AM
Yeah I have a hard time with their notion that people would want to volunteer to build all those cities and whatnot because they'd know that everyone would have everything if they did. I mean it does kind of sound a bit like charity in a free market but it's not really is it?
outspoken
01-25-2011, 11:08 AM
Zeigeist is the Matrix coming to fuition. For many it is too painful to unplug for the truth and belief that while we each are instilled with inherent rights we are not of equal capacity. Money (i.e. Capitalism) is not the root of evil but love/worship of it. Money is necessary as a means of storing production and exchanging goods in a civilized society. There's no getting around that.
Sentient Void
01-25-2011, 11:15 AM
Yeah I have a hard time with their notion that people would want to volunteer to build all those cities and whatnot because they'd know that everyone would have everything if they did. I mean it does kind of sound a bit like charity in a free market but it's not really is it?
It's quite speculative, indeed. I also found it hilarious how they said that the US is the most highly individualistic nation in the world, and with more individualism you have less altruism. Ummmm... I'm pretty sure the US gives out more charity, more often, and by much greater amounts, by far - compared to any other nation on the planet. In the history of the planet. Let's contrast that with the most collectivist nations that have ever come about such as the Soviet Union, N. Korea, Cuba... etc - they were either net parasites (Soviet Union benefitted from massive foreign aid from the US), or were just miserable places to live.
Not only that - but while even *if* they managed to find a way to have all manufacturing of *material goods* automated - there's still the issue of *services*. If all goods are free and everyone can get all the goods they want - since demands are virtually if not literally infinite, people would then demand more and more services. Haircuts, massages, education, dispute resolution, acting, comedy, prostitution, explorers, tourist guides, etc... I could go on forever. There would be a massive market for these and many other services. There would have to be a way to coordinate the supply/demand of these services in some way, and without a price signal and a functional supply/demand mechanism, it would be impossible to meet these demands. Not everyone can be a philosopher, or a race car driver, or an explorer, or whatever. As an example, maybe you'd have a *highly* disproportionate amount of people who might want to be tourist guides, but without a way to coordinate supply of tourist guides with the demand for actual tourist guides (and pay them according to supply and demand), you'd have many of them doing nothing at all and would either never be able to live up to their dream, or fly blind picking some other random job they might like but will have no one to supply it to.
If people have a demand for a service, they will want it met, and either a legitimate currency will automatically arise and create yet an inevitable free market in the realm of services (assuming this utopian society is actually voluntary like they claim), or a political class or this fabled 'supercomputer' would have to *force* people into what jobs they are designated to be (in order to *try miserably* meet the actual demands of such markets), much like the computer or whatever political class will decide how resources are allocated.
BAM - you're back to square one. Either outright oppressive communist Statism or a free market.
Romulus
01-25-2011, 11:20 AM
Maybe I'm brainwashed, but civilization w/o a means of exchange..how is that possible in an advanced society?
hazek
01-25-2011, 11:25 AM
I think that what their main error is is the notion that we are all equal. Correct me if I understood the film wrong but they said that the inequality is our core problem for which they proposed their solution..
But I don't think we are equal. Some people are genetically bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, and on and on. And although I agree with their first part that genes don't determine but only predispose certain traits which may or may not develop depending on the environment but that still is a difference. If nothing else some people will need more time to acquire certain skills or grow muscle then others, not to mention we have no control on the height to which we grow as the most obvious inequality between us.
So I believe as soon as we can dismiss their premise of humans being equal their solution collapses and the free market solution prevails.
Romulus
01-25-2011, 11:29 AM
I think that what their main error is is the notion that we are all equal. Correct me if I understood the film wrong but they said that the inequality is our core problem for which they proposed their solution..
But I don't think we are equal. Some people are genetically bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, and on and on. And although I agree with their first part that genes don't determine but only predispose certain traits which may or may not develop depending on the environment but that still is a difference. If nothing else some people will need more time to acquire certain skills or grow muscle then others, not to mention we have no control on the height to which we grow as the most obvious inequality between us.
So I believe as soon as we can dismiss their premise of humans being equal their solution collapses and the free market solution prevails.
Maybe their premise is based on the fact that some people are givers and some are takers, and that everyone will be satisfied doing just that. However humans are flawed, it sounds like that fact is ignored in a big way.
hazek
01-25-2011, 11:39 AM
Em yea that's what I meant. Maybe I should have said we aren't equally capable although we have equal rights.
Sentient Void
01-25-2011, 12:41 PM
If anything, it's our intrinsic inequality (read:non-sameness) that is our strength. It allows for a more effective market and a more robust and versatile species. Our inequality doesn't make us flawed, it just makes us different.
This simply lends more to the division of labor and comparative advantage - both concepts that contribute to a better functioning market that leads to a higher standard of living.
Romulus
01-25-2011, 12:50 PM
We're flawed because we're human, not because we are not equal.
There are things you just can't remove from nature. They are not programmed into us, we are designed around it.
Zeitgeist 3 sounds like it's proposing that we become dehumanized... working living in harmony w/o wants, needs or desires.
hazek
01-25-2011, 12:57 PM
Zeitgeist 3 sounds like it's proposing that we become dehumanized... working living in harmony w/o wants, needs or desires.
Yep I pretty much had the same kind of thoughts when I was watching it.
dannno
01-25-2011, 01:04 PM
Zeitgeist 3 sounds like it's proposing that we become dehumanized... working living in harmony w/o wants, needs or desires.
That's not the intention, it seems it might result in that, though.. but I think what they want to do is create such a great system that people will want to be apart of it, and volunteer to help build the society to be apart of it.. Honestly, I wish them all the luck, as long as I'm free to live in a separate society with a means of exchange.. Who knows, maybe they will create cool places to live afterall and we'll all want to live there.
But they were also talking about local production of goods so they wouldn't have to travel as far, but what if that local didn't have the resources? I guess they want to ship the resources to a region and then build it.. but then the computer puts limits on resource consumption, so I don't understand if everybody fills out a survey and wants A, B and C, but there isn't enough resources to give everybody C, then who gets it? Nobody?
angelatc
01-25-2011, 01:05 PM
I'm certainly no expert on middle eastern animal husbandry.
That should be your signature! :)
IceForester
01-25-2011, 01:47 PM
"There would have to be a way to coordinate the supply/demand of these services in some way, and without a price signal and a functional supply/demand mechanism, it would be impossible to meet these demands."
You get tons of people available no longer working on obsolete or automated tasks, of these a number will volunteer and training will be free. The supply of services in areas that are interesting for people will overwelm any demand, the same way if many people like painting and start to paint you will have a treasure trove of paintings to choose from, I dont think its bad. You will have more free music, comedy on youtube and movies than you can watch, money will not be a limitation anything that exists will be available, you will be richer in a sense. There would be an abundance of services people love to do. But there should also be a demand/supply information system available online in which preferences/requests/demand for services are recorded and offers and in training(in the pipeline) are recorded, so that people see what are the areas with divergence and not enough people. Also note that there is no longer monetary restrictions for education and training so many people can train to perform a service, and its easier to integrate part time workers in the sense that if new collegues reduce the amount of work needed you dont care since you dont get paid less.
For services that not enough people like to do, there would be shortages, and thats bad the same way a plantation owner might find it bad to abolish slavery. There would be an incentive to automate these tasks and rearrange them so that they are part time and diversified. There are flaws and disadvantages alright, but at this point I think the many advantages outweigh the few disadvantages.
In a transition period, I find there is a need to resolve the problems of shortages in tasks that are in short supply and that are not sufficiently automated yet. There probably is a more creative way to adress this problem then money as we know it today, but that has not been proposed to my satisfaction yet.
socialvirus
01-25-2011, 01:56 PM
While I overall do sort of agree with the idea of abolishing the monetary system, and that it does become a form of enslavement, I think that this is the result of human societies the world over being too much in their infancy, and a monetary system being a necessary evil. What is a truly great evil we all would agree is the insider trading crony capitalism amalgamation of business in government shutting down honest free market competitors.
Honestly, why should you have to pay to live on a planet you were born on? However I also covet the idea of being able to own land, and not being a serf. Abolishing the monetary system would have to come through evolution, not revolution. I don't think Peter Joseph even knows how he would do it.
I believe that in this country and others like it, we have a much better chance of reaffirming the constitution and bill of rights than we do abolishing the entire monetary system and forming a one world benevolent Venus project government Star Trek-like society. It's hard enough to get the masses to embrace the constitution, executing the agenda of the zeitgeist movement seems next to impossible.
This is also further dividing the anti-global government movements into different economic camps as well. Ron Paul and the Austrian economists libertarians seem diametrically opposed to the ideas of the ZM.
We should unite against big government and violence for right now, and then debate the best economic systems after our future looks more secure.
dannno
01-25-2011, 02:10 PM
This is also further dividing the anti-global government movements into different economic camps as well.
Ya, it does to some extent, which is why I'm more prone to having people watch this film after they understand economics and liberty. I have an economics degree, in which I learned some "real" economics, or concepts behind it, but also some fake stuff (I didn't take a ton of macro econ, though, so most of it was pretty good, but not directly related to topics in Austrian Economics). Then in the last 3 years I have learned Austrian Economics, which is real economics. My roommate thinks that I was brainwashed by economics in college, but in reality I have to explain how that's true to some extent, but I learned real economics more recently.. but he doesn't understand the zero sum fallacy and refuses to think that competition can lead to more wealth creation.. I've educated him quite a bit in free market stuff, and he agrees it is better than what we have today which is a start.. but he thinks that free markets will lead to this non-free market system we have today and the only way to stop it is to get rid of money.
Ron Paul and the Austrian economists libertarians seem diametrically opposed to the ideas of the ZM.
Not if they don't use force, as long as it's voluntary I see no problem with the ZM, other than the fallacies they try to teach about free markets..
jmdrake
01-25-2011, 02:15 PM
Not if they don't use force, as long as it's voluntary I see no problem with the ZM, other than the fallacies they try to teach about free markets..
And how do they achieve their aims without the use of force? I'm specifically talking about the "efficient allocation of resources". You can't "allocate" something that you don't 100% control. That's where the force comes in IMO.
IceForester
01-25-2011, 02:18 PM
"I don't understand if everybody fills out a survey and wants A, B and C, but there isn't enough resources to give everybody C, then who gets it? Nobody?"
A lot of the ressources can be recycled, reused and upgraded, and I do think most people would be far far better off than today, but there are pratical limitations. If you were to ask a slave bound to a galley's oar if he would rather live and do what he really wants instead, and eat foods and fruits from around the world, travel for free, have acess to all know forms of art and music, have hot water at the turn of a knob, a place to live with all the latest furniture, and live better than a prince, would he say "Sure but what if I want 20,000 gold plated toilets of my very own? Are there goind to be enough ressources so I can get 20000 gold toilets just for me, Golum wants his gold toilets, my precious, not for functional reasons but just because?". To answer your question, I would have a number of communities where each community sets priorities based of the preferneces, lifestyles, culture of the local population, this would help determine what are priorities and measures to adress limitations. If there isnt enough ressources so everbody has a C, then there could be
1) shared C (library, boat) for applications that arent used 100% of the time (I have power tools that I use 3 hours each year, for 364 days it gathers dust and wastes space)
2)more E an alternate version of C that are functionaly similar but require different components,
3) the possibility of recycling the previous version of C or of D(which is no longer wanted) so that ressources could be used to make more 'C'.
My question is how reservations would work and if there would be a reservation point system.
dannno
01-25-2011, 02:21 PM
And how do they achieve their aims without the use of force? I'm specifically talking about the "efficient allocation of resources". You can't "allocate" something that you don't 100% control. That's where the force comes in IMO.
Well the idea is that becoming apart of the system is voluntary, that everybody will receive a higher consciousness and suddenly want to join up.. but there is no force involved, so people would be able to live outside the system.
Honestly without force it's never going to work, but it's something they believe in and think that they can get everyone else to believe in too... in the mean time they present a lot of great info on science that is not directly related to how their society is structured.. they use the science in order to back why they want the structure in the first place, they just don't realize that the free market would fix the problems they are talking about. They think the free market is causing those problems.. for example medical costs rising, increasing the GDP means more people are getting sick, and that is bad. But they don't talk about how the FDA and doctor licensing is causing those problems, not money in and of itself. They argue the existence of money is what lead to the FDA and doctor licensing, which should be avoided, but it also leads to efficient resource allocation when the economy is left to itself to function.
IceForester
01-25-2011, 02:25 PM
We should unite against big government and violence for right now, and then debate the best economic systems after our future looks more secure.
I agree, the primary aspect of ZM that should be opposed is its Global objectives, we can agree to disagree on the rest, the best situation is for many different regions of the world to be free to adopt and change their system and give one a chance without over or covert war/coup/sabotage/destabilisation from groups from other regions that are dogmatically opposed to the system being tried and without reprisals. If it doesnt work maybe it can be fixed, otherwise the people in the region can try something else.
eric_cartman
01-25-2011, 02:25 PM
Well the idea is that becoming apart of the system is voluntary, that everybody will receive a higher consciousness and suddenly want to join up.. but there is no force involved, so people would be able to live outside the system.
i don't think anyone is able to opt out and live in a free society instead because one of their main points is that they have to have 100% control over all natural resources in the world. so if you did not want to be a part of their system, you wouldn't have access to any natural resources and you wouldn't be able to use any of the land that they use... and i would guess that they would get pissed off at you if you started to "pollute" or use up the earth's "natural resources".
dannno
01-25-2011, 02:32 PM
i don't think anyone is able to opt out and live in a free society instead because one of their main points is that they have to have 100% control over all natural resources in the world. so if you did not want to be a part of their system, you wouldn't have access to any natural resources and you wouldn't be able to use any of the land that they use... and i would guess that they would get pissed off at you if you started to "pollute" or use up the earth's "natural resources".
They would need an army to control resources, an army bigger than the US army, which they supposedly don't believe in.
I think what they want is to track the resources so they don't use too many.. but animals use resources too, like water, so they have to take into account that there are others using those resources. It would just become apart of the equation.
I don't know how they would deal with others polluting their resources, but I think they want to create something so great that people would not want to be outside their system.. so in their mind it works, but reality, probably not so much.
IceForester
01-25-2011, 02:43 PM
"I'm specifically talking about the "efficient allocation of resources". You can't "allocate" something that you don't 100% control. "
Thats why I favor a regional approach, people that have a preference for a system should gather in a region, instead of bending over backwards to have a superlarge landmass of cats and dogs trying to force a system on everyone which ends up making sure no system is implemented and the broken corrupt status quo is assured. Within a region, the people can control that region's ressources, and recycle ressources that have come from others and use substitutes. As for using force, a region should establish its mode of operation and allow those who want to to leave, you might say "I dont recognize the red lights and stop signs and push the pedal full throtle on a red light, its my very own individualistic and selfish right are you going to 'Force' me to..." why Yes, we are not on a desert island nor cavemen in the wilderness, so there has to be common methods, but there should be a region called MadMax-beyond-thunderdome where people a free to do whatever they want without rules or regulations including juggling blindfolded with live grenades on a crowded street and for cholera infected people to crap upstream, but there probably would still need to be methods to minimize the hazards posed by one region over another (pollution, etc), ideally.
Vessol
01-25-2011, 03:07 PM
Well the idea is that becoming apart of the system is voluntary, that everybody will receive a higher consciousness and suddenly want to join up.. but there is no force involved, so people would be able to live outside the system.
Marx also said his system would be voluntary :\.
Haven't had a chance to watch it, nothing uploaded on the Tubes yet. I'll give my thoughts once I watch it.
Sentient Void
01-25-2011, 07:37 PM
Marx also said his system would be voluntary :\.
Haven't had a chance to watch it, nothing uploaded on the Tubes yet. I'll give my thoughts once I watch it.
Btjunkie.org , use bittorrent client, search for 'zeitgeist moving firward', download torrent for it, then execute torrent. It should then begin downloading.
No need for tubes.
eric_cartman
01-25-2011, 07:40 PM
it's on youtube.... just type "zeitgeist" and organize by date
dannno
01-25-2011, 07:43 PM
Marx also said his system would be voluntary :\.
Hah, ya, I'm aware, which just adds to how incredibly skeptical I am of their system.
Actually my roommate got a hint recently, he talked to another pro-liberty activist who explained how the Zeitgeist movement could get hijaked by the elite and controlled for their ends.. so we actually need to get rid of the control the establishment has first, which is what I promote. The movement seems to want to get right into it as soon as awareness takes hold, and let the system melt at that point.
dannno
01-26-2011, 04:15 PM
Online version released:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
QueenB4Liberty
01-26-2011, 10:12 PM
While I overall do sort of agree with the idea of abolishing the monetary system, and that it does become a form of enslavement, I think that this is the result of human societies the world over being too much in their infancy, and a monetary system being a necessary evil. What is a truly great evil we all would agree is the insider trading crony capitalism amalgamation of business in government shutting down honest free market competitors.
Honestly, why should you have to pay to live on a planet you were born on? However I also covet the idea of being able to own land, and not being a serf. Abolishing the monetary system would have to come through evolution, not revolution. I don't think Peter Joseph even knows how he would do it.
I believe that in this country and others like it, we have a much better chance of reaffirming the constitution and bill of rights than we do abolishing the entire monetary system and forming a one world benevolent Venus project government Star Trek-like society. It's hard enough to get the masses to embrace the constitution, executing the agenda of the zeitgeist movement seems next to impossible.
This is also further dividing the anti-global government movements into different economic camps as well. Ron Paul and the Austrian economists libertarians seem diametrically opposed to the ideas of the ZM.
We should unite against big government and violence for right now, and then debate the best economic systems after our future looks more secure.
Yeah I agree with you. I just watched "Moving forward" and I really enjoyed it. But I still have a lot of unanswered questions. Like who is going to teach our kids because he mentioned schools. Someone else mentioned haircuts, I guess a machine could do that but I'd rather have a human being do it. I'm not a big fan of the monetary system because I don't like how much stress money puts on people. But after it all it just made me realize how much Ron Paul really isn't fringe at all. If anything we first need smaller government. I think if you are comfortable in your beliefs you'll have no problem watching things that put them into question. Has anyone seen Mike Ruppert's "Collapse"? That was also a pretty great documentary. The biggest question I have for Peter Joseph is how this transition will take place. But he was being a total control freak about his movie being bootlegged and uploaded yesterday without his permission before the official release, so that has me believing that he'll be coercive and violent if he has to.
I
As far as that part of my post, I meant in a free society would help to create self sustaining technology, opposed to the system of control we have today that is highly regulated and dependent on certain forms of energy.
A free society will excel far beyond any slave organization. This is demonstrated empirically beyond any doubt whatsoever. We have centuries worth of examples that illustrate this in overwhelming abundance. There are examples of slave nations that have excelled as well - NAZI Germany being an excellent example of this - but they never last. Twelve years into his 1000-year Reich, it was all over despite the remarkable accomplishments made in that small time. But also bear in mind that those were eagerly willing slaves - ones who believed the lies of the golden, clean order of National Socialism. Even had Hitler prevailed, where do we thing Germany would have headed in time? The drain.
genanmer
03-02-2011, 03:27 AM
Hi everyone,
New user here. I joined this forum to discover if there really are better long-term solutions to the problems presented in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward pointing to the failings of the fiat currency system. I'm a member of the Zeitgeist Movement and although the ideas presented in the film may come off as... unique there are many assumptions being made here which I don't believe is accurate.
So, I'd like to address some misconceptions here about the intentions of the film (through my own understanding of it).
The film emphasizes nurture and the environment's effect on behavior to place more attention towards the system and social change.
My interpretation from the Zeitgeist Movement is an individual's internal environment (mind) stores more than enough information and randomness for us to act against the will of the group. Every individual is capable of choosing to act against the aberrant (poor) instinctive behavior of a group. However, this relies on the condition that they are aware the behavior itself is aberrant. This also depends on the emotional willpower of an individual. Most fall into habitual patterns of behavior and are too attached emotionally to these behaviors to change even if they are aware the behavior is wrong. This is why nurture (environment/ society) in general, is more powerful than an individual's choice (willingness to change), which is more powerful than nature (genetics). Nurture > Choice (in general)> Nature. This view simply prioritizes social rather than personal change to address common issues.
The statement made in the film that America is one of the most individualistic societies isn't worded correctly as groups of Americans DO in fact work together. However the main point made here is that monetary incentives force competition and 'us' vs 'them' mentalities to develop. This leads to an attitude that is less collaborative and rewards people for gaining advantages even if the methods used to obtain these advantages are unethical.
The major short-term issue the Zeitgeist film(s) are horrible at addressing is the 'transition' period. There is no direct reference to this within Zeitgeist: Moving Forward but it is by far the biggest concern within the movement. (from what I've seen)
The 'transition' period is the foreseen time between the collapse of the current fiat system and the so-called Resource Based Economy. As you have already noticed there are no specifics provided as to how people are going to suddenly let go of their own property in favor of supporting a commune.
On thezeitgeistmovement.com forum many attempts are made at finding a workable solution to this problem.
The most obvious which I believe both that group and this group support is doing away with the fiat money system. However there are plenty of debates there on what should replace it, if anything at all. A value based economy has been proposed, as well as time banking, and competing currencies based on specific economic activities. Overall the basic agreement within the movement is that all fundamental necessities such as food, water, energy, and shelter should be accessible to all.
A high priority is also placed on technology, as the whole idea of liberating the world while providing universal access relies on automation and cybernation technologies. The major goal in regards to technology is testing it's feasibility within a real self-sustainable city which is why models and graphics are used in Zeitgeist media rather than actual buildings.
Finally, by far the biggest obstacle is proving to people that this type of society can work as presented AND be more beneficial to them than the monetary system. Otherwise it's practically a guarantee that opposing groups will take it over by force. Basically, in order for this to work a true democracy must exist where people choose to join on a global scale.
So, in a nutshell this is the basic direction and obstacles members of the Zeitgeist Movement are working on addressing: A transitional economic system into a RBE, proving technological feasibility, and spreading awareness.
Unless I'm completely off the mark from watching/reading at least 100 hours worth of talks, videos, and threads they are not a cult, proposing a NWO, or looking to eat any babies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4xVqL5ZQco&feature=player_embedded
I would like to add more but I need sleep.
Oh, and nice to meet you all. :)
hugolp
03-02-2011, 04:01 AM
Hi everyone,
Hi. Welcome to the forums.
New user here. I joined this forum to discover if there really are better long-term solutions to the problems presented in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward pointing to the failings of the fiat currency system. I'm a member of the Zeitgeist Movement and although the ideas presented in the film may come off as... unique there are many assumptions being made here which I don't believe is accurate.
The ideas of the Zeitgeist movement are not unique or extrange at all. I know you dont want to hear this and you have been convinced of the contrary, but the ideas promoted by the Zeitgeist movement are just marxism, with different rethoric.
For example, the basic point that without the monetary system resources would not be scarce and a computer could take care of the distribution of resources because its just a computational problem. This is just a rehash of the idea of Marx that without capitalism resources would be abundant and it would be only an engineering problem to distribute them (computers were not invented when Marx lived).
I understand its a constant of the movement to deny that it is marxism, but anyone with a bit of rational capacity can see that it is indeed marxism with different rethoric. I really dont understand why they want to deny the obvious as it makes them look suspicious.
However the main point made here is that monetary incentives force competition and 'us' vs 'them' mentalities to develop. This leads to an attitude that is less collaborative and rewards people for gaining advantages even if the methods used to obtain these advantages are unethical.
But this attitude wont change without money. Lets assume for a moment the computer distribution system is a viable option. As I have been told there would be programmers actualizing the software. People would try to influence the system to get access to more resources. Instead of trying to gain more money they would try to gain more control over the computer program, using their political or social skills, group presure, etc...
I really dont see how changing the resource distribution system is going to stop some people from trying to influence or game the system.
outspoken
03-02-2011, 09:09 AM
I would encourage you all who have watched the Zeigeist movie(s) to read Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth... particularly the section on utopias. They are in fact a violation of living in the present moment, a game the ego likes to play. No matter how noble the cause, which Zeigiest is extremely noble, all progression to remove ego from human nature with fail... miserable as in the case of communism if we are not careful. There is a spectrum of consciousness which we are born into. There will always exist psychopaths who seek to exchange the offering of security for personal power which we see manifest every day in politics. It is not money that is the root of evil but rather, love/worship of money. Money provides a very necessary purpose in our capacity to store productivity. It should not be discarded just because those who love it and power use it to control the 'little people.'
'When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.' ~Jimi Hendrix
Xavi1990
03-02-2011, 09:25 AM
I am a huge fan of the Venus Project. Lookin' at the comments of some on here, I have the same concerns such as: Who will decide the age of consent, who will decide on abortion, etc. But I was wholly disappointed by this film. The start of it was very well done and there was a plethora of excellent points and great interviews. But Peter Joesph came across as commercial in my opinion. Him falling off the chair and making asinine jokes were quite pointless and uncomfortable.
It also didn't go into the ins and outs of the Venus Project. And I thought the end of it was really poor.
Jaques Fresco should have been included in the film much more. I much prefer Fresco's analysis of human behavior and technology. Shame he is 94 now.
Jeremy
03-02-2011, 09:29 AM
I am a huge fan of the Venus Project. Lookin' at the comments of some on here, I have the same concerns such as: Who will decide the age of consent, who will decide on abortion, etc. But I was wholly disappointed by this film. The start of it was very well done and there was a plethora of excellent points and great interviews. But Peter Joesph came across as commercial in my opinion. Him falling off the chair and making asinine jokes were quite pointless and uncomfortable.
It also didn't go into the ins and outs of the Venus Project. And I thought the end of it was really poor.
Jaques Fresco should have been included in the film much more. I much prefer Fresco's analysis of human behavior and technology. Shame he is 94 now.
Why are you a fan of the Venus Project?
Xavi1990
03-02-2011, 09:30 AM
I would encourage you all who have watched the Zeigeist movie(s) to read Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth... particularly the section on utopias. They are in fact a violation of living in the present moment, a game the ego likes to play. No matter how noble the cause, which Zeigiest is extremely noble, all progression to remove ego from human nature with fail... miserable as in the case of communism if we are not careful. There is a spectrum of consciousness which we are born into. There will always exist psychopaths who seek to exchange the offering of security for personal power which we see manifest every day in politics. It is not money that is the root of evil but rather, love/worship of money. Money provides a very necessary purpose in our capacity to store productivity. It should not be discarded just because those who love it and power use it to control the 'little people.'
'When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.' ~Jimi Hendrix
But the Venus Project is not nor claims to be Utopian. Fresco has delt with this issues an incalculable amount of times. I'm actually pretty sure that the book you used was read by Fresco himself.
Xavi1990
03-02-2011, 09:38 AM
Because the strains of the monetary system have destroyed humanity. We are a backward society. Look at all the technology we have and look at the devastation in the world. The monetary system automatically breeds corruption and divides us. Much like the environment we are brought up in.
The Venus Project is the only logically alternative to the failed monetary system(s). Tedious labour, asinine jobs, poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc all over. An intelligent use of the earth's resources and a much more educated society are a step forward towards humanity. I don't care, it is that simple. It's as simple as saying: "Bring home the troops and stop foreign aid. That will reduce the deficit."
As I stated in the previous post you quoted, I have some objections. But wouldn't it be a much better planet if we at least used renewable energy and the technology that is available? Look up the Fresco interview with Larry King in 1974. Look at the houses that can be built to withstand hurricans and even be designed to keep pests out of the house. It's ineffable what we can achieve.
hugolp
03-02-2011, 10:00 AM
Because the strains of the monetary system have destroyed humanity. We are a backward society. Look at all the technology we have and look at the devastation in the world. The monetary system automatically breeds corruption and divides us. Much like the environment we are brought up in.
The Venus Project is the only logically alternative to the failed monetary system(s). Tedious labour, asinine jobs, poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc all over. An intelligent use of the earth's resources and a much more educated society are a step forward towards humanity. I don't care, it is that simple. It's as simple as saying: "Bring home the troops and stop foreign aid. That will reduce the deficit."
As I stated in the previous post you quoted, I have some objections. But wouldn't it be a much better planet if we at least used renewable energy and the technology that is available? Look up the Fresco interview with Larry King in 1974. Look at the houses that can be built to withstand hurricans and even be designed to keep pests out of the house. It's ineffable what we can achieve.
But the Venus Project is not nor claims to be Utopian.
............
hugolp
03-02-2011, 10:01 AM
I still fail to see how changin money for a computer (lets assume its possible) will change the nature of people. Some people instead of trying to game the monetary system will try to game the computer system.
Wesker1982
03-02-2011, 10:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FDbZ4mbkC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6c11sREuEc
genanmer
03-02-2011, 02:17 PM
The ideas of the Zeitgeist movement are not unique or extrange at all. I know you dont want to hear this and you have been convinced of the contrary, but the ideas promoted by the Zeitgeist movement are just marxism, with different rethoric.
*shrug* I admit the two are pretty close however as Fresco has said sustainability is not taken into account through marxism. And despite emphasis on a supercomputer to maximize the efficiency of distribution, central planning is NOT the goal as accountability is important to the Zeitgeist Movement.
In fact the whole reason the scientific method is used is to guarantee that checks and balances are in place for all important decisions made ("arrived at"). As stated in the film every conclusion arrived at through science is falsifiable. Whereas the opinions of people are subjective even if it comes from a group of like-minded individuals there's no way to falsify an individual's opinion on how to distribute goods. Science > Opinion.
However, I know this often leads to the conclusion that 'cold science' will lead to maximizing efficiency at the cost of humanity. This is not the case as the system proposed is currently being designed to support all human needs including those within the realm of psychology and emotions. In order for this to occur a true democracy must be in place where people input their subjective values to the system (internet survey-esque ideal) and the system in turn supports these values scientifically.
In a nutshell we are attempting to create a system with checks and balances at all levels through the scientific method(like the medical practice) and offers the best solution to people based on current scientific understanding. (In otherwords this Supercomputer must be open source for all to see the code and to prevent corruption)
For example, the basic point that without the monetary system resources would not be scarce and a computer could take care of the distribution of resources because its just a computational problem. This is just a rehash of the idea of Marx that without capitalism resources would be abundant and it would be only an engineering problem to distribute them (computers were not invented when Marx lived).
This is exactly where science would come in. I havn't done enough research on this myself but others in the movement claim that current technology (if it isn't artificially limited) can provide the basic necessities to every person on the planet. The issue is that there are monetary incentives for problems to linger/exist even if solutions are available. e.g. Our using oil vs using clean sustainable energy sources.
But this attitude wont change without money. Lets assume for a moment the computer distribution system is a viable option. As I have been told there would be programmers actualizing the software. People would try to influence the system to get access to more resources. Instead of trying to gain more money they would try to gain more control over the computer program, using their political or social skills, group presure, etc...
I really dont see how changing the resource distribution system is going to stop some people from trying to influence or game the system.
And this is exactly why myself and others are looking around for methods to prevent this from occuring. The 'transition' period is inevitable because most people live with a scarcity paradigm. (Basically, a need isn't being met whether its love, security, significance, entertainment, food, water, warmth, etc) If a system is capable of providing these needs to people and the methods are proven scientifically these people will automatically look to contribute to the system and help it evolve to be even better.
Again, we are looking for scientific evidence in the movement. So for the transition we require a sound transitional economic model, preventative safeguards against corruption, testing of certain technologies within a self-sustainable city, and TONS of evidence to support or deny all models.
So when we say we emphasize the use of science to organize society our claims are not much different from saying use science to heal people. (medicine)
Right now we need more eyes looking at economic models to transition into such a society as well as ideas for temporary safeguards. We need support for global shift from a world paradigm of scarcity to one of abundance. Abundance /= Utopia
Xavi1990
03-02-2011, 03:20 PM
............ You have not listened to anything that Fresco has said evidently or what I said. I gave some of my trepidations about the Venus Project.
The word "Utopia" is a loathed term. The Venus Project is open to criticisms and makes no claims to be paradise of the best that humanity can do. That is what Socialism claimed to be but that was a fallacy in the 20th Century. The technology is there to fully augment the human race. That's what I am for.
As a man who influenced many American founding fathers once said: "My Country is the world. My religion is to do good." In monetary terms I am a Capitalist, but do you really honestly think that if the Fed is audited that will be the end of everything? The way people go on about a return to the free market system is like it's a Utopia. How many recessions did America have before 1913?
The Venus Project wants to better humanity using technology. Which is how me and you are communicating and is what has prolonged our lives, way of life, etc. I don't know if you're a Christian, but if you are, in your prays don't you say: "And be it as on earth as it is in heaven"? I don't remember the idea of heaven involving cleaning toilets or doings needless labour, do you?
Verily, I'm more for the technology of the Venus Project, I have some apprehension about a society with no laws, etc. Which I already stated.
Vessol
03-02-2011, 04:40 PM
Oh look, this thread again.
outspoken
03-02-2011, 05:07 PM
Money or no money, until someone can figure out how to get people to sign up voluntarily for marxism then the Venus project is completely dead and should be avoided like the black plague. It is not natural or healthy to live for another human being greater than for oneself or one's family. While we can voluntarily be a member of a group working together for common good and be greater than the sum of our parts, it is irrational to offer oneself more to others than one self. The beauty of a laissez-faire capitalistic society is that it offers the potential to voluntarily of free will help each other while taking care of one's self first and foremost. I think anyone that condemns religion for failure to recognizing the struggle between ego and consciousness within themselves is dangerous to a civilized society. Many atheists hate religion because they fail to recognize that which is within themselves that is derived from fear vs. love. As a Christian who also believes in the theory of evolution, I can say that we are each as individuals called to help and love one another as duty but also respect that we much first love ourselves. Without a respect to something greater than ourselves, which I called God but another may call nature, we are just a ego-driven menace to society. As venus-like society would have to come about via force which is what government offers. It would just create an opportunity for those who seek power over others to posititions of leadership and a whole group people addicted to other people's production thus decreasing the overall production altogether.... oh snap, that's what we have now.
hugolp
03-03-2011, 12:51 AM
*shrug* I admit the two are pretty close however as Fresco has said sustainability is not taken into account through marxism. And despite emphasis on a supercomputer to maximize the efficiency of distribution, central planning is NOT the goal as accountability is important to the Zeitgeist Movement.
In fact the whole reason the scientific method is used is to guarantee that checks and balances are in place for all important decisions made ("arrived at"). As stated in the film every conclusion arrived at through science is falsifiable. Whereas the opinions of people are subjective even if it comes from a group of like-minded individuals there's no way to falsify an individual's opinion on how to distribute goods. Science > Opinion.
However, I know this often leads to the conclusion that 'cold science' will lead to maximizing efficiency at the cost of humanity. This is not the case as the system proposed is currently being designed to support all human needs including those within the realm of psychology and emotions. In order for this to occur a true democracy must be in place where people input their subjective values to the system (internet survey-esque ideal) and the system in turn supports these values scientifically.
In a nutshell we are attempting to create a system with checks and balances at all levels through the scientific method(like the medical practice) and offers the best solution to people based on current scientific understanding. (In otherwords this Supercomputer must be open source for all to see the code and to prevent corruption)
This is exactly where science would come in. I havn't done enough research on this myself but others in the movement claim that current technology (if it isn't artificially limited) can provide the basic necessities to every person on the planet. The issue is that there are monetary incentives for problems to linger/exist even if solutions are available. e.g. Our using oil vs using clean sustainable energy sources.
And this is exactly why myself and others are looking around for methods to prevent this from occuring. The 'transition' period is inevitable because most people live with a scarcity paradigm. (Basically, a need isn't being met whether its love, security, significance, entertainment, food, water, warmth, etc) If a system is capable of providing these needs to people and the methods are proven scientifically these people will automatically look to contribute to the system and help it evolve to be even better.
Again, we are looking for scientific evidence in the movement. So for the transition we require a sound transitional economic model, preventative safeguards against corruption, testing of certain technologies within a self-sustainable city, and TONS of evidence to support or deny all models.
So when we say we emphasize the use of science to organize society our claims are not much different from saying use science to heal people. (medicine)
Right now we need more eyes looking at economic models to transition into such a society as well as ideas for temporary safeguards. We need support for global shift from a world paradigm of scarcity to one of abundance. Abundance /= Utopia
Define science.
silverhandorder
03-03-2011, 01:26 AM
I think Venus project needs to focus on creating environment they want instead of trying to design an economic system. This means start educating people on how to raise kids (without violence), work together to help other TZM people become successful in life. This is the only way they can achieve any significant change or acquire the resources you would need. We are essentially predicting the same thing that the current system will collapse. Well there will be people that will see our way and want absolutely free market and there will be people who would want central authority to take over the resources. If we want to avoid violence on a big scale we would need to work some way out how both systems can coexist.
genanmer
03-03-2011, 01:44 AM
@hugolp
I should have used the term Scientific Method.
Scientific method: refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or Correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
@Wesker1982
Here's a link to one transitional economic model proposed. The VBE (http://www.customersatisfactionmonitor.com/docs/newecomodel1-1.pdf) Value-Based Economy
It provides a model that works from the bottom-up to obtain information on determining what goods/services are valued rather than demanding a supercomputer to assess the value of everything from the top down. It's incomplete but incorporates the idea of using surveys to determine what goods/services people value.
The main difference between the proposed VBE (value based economy) and a RBE (resource based economy) is of course, personal values are prioritized over resources as a RBE does not advocate the use of force to gain acceptance on a global scale and most people in the present society really don't give a damn about resources or sustainability. An RBE also demands a global shift away from scarcity and a better education model before it can take effect.
@Outspoken
A major reason the Zeitgeist Movement exists is to discover viable solutions to all issues which cause division between people. If the Venus Project's Resource Based Economy were able to function on it's own accord there would be no need for The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM).
In regards to religious intolerance I believe most members within the movement take this stance as most of us are looking for evidence that is falsifiable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w
I guess the hypocrisy is that there exists intolerance for intolerance within the movement.
The common belief held in TZM is that most organized religions push their own beliefs against opposing faiths but refuse to be criticized, or evaluated. The Movement prides itself on criticism, self-assessment, and skepticism in order to scientifically approach everything. Promoting anything without providing any tangible benefits ticks them off.
My own belief is that emotional intelligence and compassionate responses are often pushed aside in favor of objectivity. In general the movement by na...nurture is very skeptical and understand reason much better than emotion.
So if measurable benefits of any religion can be provided and proven scientifically they might actually support it.
In regards to using monetary incentives to motivate I thought this was interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded#at=28
hugolp
03-03-2011, 02:06 AM
@hugolp
I should have used the term Scientific Method.
Scientific method: refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or Correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
But how you distribute the resources is never a scientific issue, its a political/moral issue. Why someone should have something and not another person is not a sicentific issue, its a moral/political one.
You are using the word scientific to give validity to your discourse but its meaningless.
genanmer
03-03-2011, 03:20 AM
Why someone should have something and not another person
This is the problem right here. This is coming from a position of scarcity.
It presupposes someone DESIRES something which is in LIMITED supply.
If there is a scarcity of resources to meet necessities abundantly an RBE won't work. Again, this is why technologies must first be tested within a demonstration city, a shift in values must occur, and a transition period is inevitable.
A resource-based economy is two steps away, not one.
As far as non-essential goods/services the 'sharing is caring' concept applies. Not everyone will want the same goods/services at once. If anything a first come, first serve sign up will be used. E.g. public transportation, lending out entertainment equipment, etc. (And no, I don't believe we plan to share toothbrushes or underwear)
If you can tolerate the repetitive music and robot voice this site does a pretty good job of conveying many TZM ideas. http://tromsite.com/#
Also the VBE (http://www.customersatisfactionmonitor.com/docs/newecomodel1-1.pdf) may offer a bridge between the current system and a RBE system but it too has plenty of details to iron out.
"A simple way of understanding how Value Points will work is to think in terms of
how some computer games work. In these games, players collect points (build a
reputation) and once they reach a certain level they are entitled to receive better
tools, more resources or access to different levels."
So in a way I agree, it is a cultural issue but I can't answer your question based on the current paradigm.
hugolp
03-03-2011, 03:54 AM
This is the problem right here. This is coming from a position of scarcity.
It presupposes someone DESIRES something which is in LIMITED supply.
If there is a scarcity of resources to meet necessities abundantly an RBE won't work. Again, this is why technologies must first be tested within a demonstration city, a shift in values must occur, and a transition period is inevitable.
A resource-based economy is two steps away, not one.
As far as non-essential goods/services the 'sharing is caring' concept applies. Not everyone will want the same goods/services at once. If anything a first come, first serve sign up will be used. E.g. public transportation, lending out entertainment equipment, etc. (And no, I don't believe we plan to share toothbrushes or underwear)
If you can tolerate the repetitive music and robot voice this site does a pretty good job of conveying many TZM ideas. http://tromsite.com/#
Also the VBE (http://www.customersatisfactionmonitor.com/docs/newecomodel1-1.pdf) may offer a bridge between the current system and a RBE system but it too has plenty of details to iron out.
"A simple way of understanding how Value Points will work is to think in terms of
how some computer games work. In these games, players collect points (build a
reputation) and once they reach a certain level they are entitled to receive better
tools, more resources or access to different levels."
So in a way I agree, it is a cultural issue but I can't answer your question based on the current paradigm.
Why do you believe resources will appear and not new needs or desires in your Computer Based Economy?
You tell me that the problem with the present system is that people game the system, that you dont know how to avoid the same in the new system but that you are working on this...
Honestly, it seems all very very fuzzy.
silverhandorder
03-03-2011, 07:16 AM
The problem is that resources are scarce and will be scarce for the time being. Even if resources were not scarce there are a ton of things like space and services that would still be scarce and require a medium of exchange.
genanmer
03-04-2011, 01:08 AM
Why do you believe resources will appear and not new needs or desires in your Computer Based Economy?
I do believe new desires will appear as society and everything else evolves. However, I don't believe the fundamental needs of each person will change. What I believe does change is HOW these needs are met and science/technology for the most part has addressed this issue very well throughout human history. Advertising on the other hand... not so much.
In our current society desires change very rapidly as a good portion of advertising make people feel shitty about some part of their lives. In turn many purchase stuff/services they don't need to fill that gap. This is why its so common for people to attach the notion of scarcity to what they 'desire' rather than a feeling of excitement and confidence. e.g. Buying a private Jet vs helping those in poverty
Here's another way to look at it. I'll borrow a model Tony Robbins uses. He states every person's 'needs' (desires) can be broken down into 6 categories. Certainty, Entertainment, Significance, Connection, Growth, and Contribution.
1.Certainty/Comfort: We want to feel certain that there we will have food, the building won't collapse, and that our safety is not threatened.
2.Entertainment/Uncertainty: We don't want to feel bored
3.Significance: We want to feel respected and valued
4.Connection/love: We want to feel cared for and cared about.
5.Growth: We want to improve in some way
6.Contribution: We want to make the world better in some way
Certain activities/behaviors fulfill these Desires at a greater level than others. However some behaviors fulfill one desire at the cost of another. I can feel certain I'll be entertained if I drink a huge amount of alcohol or I could scheme my way up the corporate ladder to feel significant and powerful. Using violence is another common example of this.
As an individual, discovering what activities fulfill a few of these desires without hurting others will lead to happiness. Fail to meet these desires, and you will be unhappy.
In the context of the VenusProject's society or any society for that matter, incentives must exist to meet all these desires at a high level. Otherwise that society creates an environment of scarcity and discontent. As you well know the current system profits off of scarcity in many ways.
The real question then for both this movement and TZM's is how will a post-fiat currency society meet these desires?
Both movements advocate peace, education, humanity, etc, etc. We are both pushing for the same general direction.
Check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAjFBsp__aE&feature=related
Really the question that causes conflict is the HOW.
TZM advocates creating a system that gives necessary resources to all people (including those in present 3rd world countries) by releasing all monetary restrictions on technology. No more patent rights, planned obsolescence. They also wish to eliminate profit driven limitations (e.g. reliance on oil, inferior quality production), the unnecessary reproduction of goods, unnecessary occupations (in favor of automation/cybernation), and inequality. Of course, what's missing in TZM is a working economic model.
This movement advocates a shift in the current system to work for the people by completely reforming the U.S. monetary system. This in turn will bring a great amount of integrity back to the system as corrupt practices lose power.
You tell me that the problem with the present system is that people game the system, that you dont know how to avoid the same in the new system but that you are working on this...
Honestly, it seems all very very fuzzy.
In a 'fuzzy' nutshell, yes.
I believe this group is more knowledgeable about economics and if this group is capable of coming up with answers/solutions which address TZM's desire for sustainability and unrestricted technological progress it may bridge both groups. (More support for both groups)
I'll post some of these questions later on in another thread.
The problem is that resources are scarce and will be scarce for the time being. Even if resources were not scarce there are a ton of things like space and services that would still be scarce and require a medium of exchange.
There are many inefficiencies in the current society. There is artificial scarcity created by the present system and from current available technologies alone, (that is the technologies which have not been suppressed by certain corporations) abundance can be created in many areas.
Videos
Our technical reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2nxCp9Hwxs
Automation (examples)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQDArhWznjU
3d printer that can potentially change the way goods are created
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VJpBj2mLEU&feature=player_embedded
One water fuel cell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AonkgeeCUE&feature=player_embedded#at=96
A new form of memory that uses less power, is supposedly cheaper than hard drive memory, and is faster than flash memory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5jRHZWQ0sc&feature=player_embedded
Ever see water burn? A potential form of fuel if energy input can be lowered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg_Fx9iee0c&feature=player_embedded
A water burning engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKM4pb9Oxrg&feature=player_embedded#at=96
Lots of food produced within a small area (Permaculture is preferred by most TZM members)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV9CCxdkOng&feature=player_embedded
A new type of battery
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
Here's a clip of Jacque Fresco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0IOcxDnsBU&feature=player_embedded#at=179
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 01:56 AM
Thanks to Jacque Fresco, I know that economics is really all about allocating resources for social concern. Prior to being exposed to his work, I thought that economics was all about money and markets. May we all learn about how to design the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxe7tlr-2I4
hugolp
03-04-2011, 02:59 AM
I do believe new desires will appear as society and everything else evolves. However, I don't believe the fundamental needs of each person will change. What I believe does change is HOW these needs are met and science/technology for the most part has addressed this issue very well throughout human history. Advertising on the other hand... not so much.
I find extremely ironic that the TZM/VP is so aggressive against advertising when the whole TZM is quite a big advertisement campaing (very well executed btw). You and others even admit that not all the details of the movement are yet solved, but that does not stop you all from advertising the movement. The movies are a great example of terrific advertising.
Advertising is not something new. What it is new is how big media can advertise. But when you talk to people, when you look for a job, when you try to hook up with a girl/boy you are advertising yourself. You are trying to show your best side (or some even lying about it). Information is limited and you are trying to inform in a favorable way to you. That is advertising. Its something that wont stop happening.
In your dreamed society f.e. I am sure there could be organized campaigns to promote some change in the computer. Some will claim its just information for the people, others will claim its advertising. How do you deal with that? Do have a sort of government controlling all information to decide what its ifnormation and can go through and what its advertising and should be censored?
Information/advertising its in human nature. There is no need to make demagoguery about it.
In our current society desires change very rapidly as a good portion of advertising make people feel shitty about some part of their lives. In turn many purchase stuff/services they don't need to fill that gap. This is why its so common for people to attach the notion of scarcity to what they 'desire' rather than a feeling of excitement and confidence. e.g. Buying a private Jet vs helping those in poverty
Here's another way to look at it. I'll borrow a model Tony Robbins uses. He states every person's 'needs' (desires) can be broken down into 6 categories. Certainty, Entertainment, Significance, Connection, Growth, and Contribution.
1.Certainty/Comfort: We want to feel certain that there we will have food, the building won't collapse, and that our safety is not threatened.
2.Entertainment/Uncertainty: We don't want to feel bored
3.Significance: We want to feel respected and valued
4.Connection/love: We want to feel cared for and cared about.
5.Growth: We want to improve in some way
6.Contribution: We want to make the world better in some way
Certain activities/behaviors fulfill these Desires at a greater level than others. However some behaviors fulfill one desire at the cost of another. I can feel certain I'll be entertained if I drink a huge amount of alcohol or I could scheme my way up the corporate ladder to feel significant and powerful. Using violence is another common example of this.
As an individual, discovering what activities fulfill a few of these desires without hurting others will lead to happiness. Fail to meet these desires, and you will be unhappy.
You just described the free market.
What worries me is that in all that explanation seems to be embedded that you really know what will make others happy. That you somehow have the answer to the personal problems of all the people in the world. That thought leads to social engineering.
In the context of the VenusProject's society or any society for that matter, incentives must exist to meet all these desires at a high level. Otherwise that society creates an environment of scarcity and discontent. As you well know the current system profits off of scarcity in many ways.
Whats wrong with profit? Profits produce incentives and gives information on what needs to be done.
The real question then for both this movement and TZM's is how will a post-fiat currency society meet these desires?
Both movements advocate peace, education, humanity, etc, etc. We are both pushing for the same general direction.
Check out this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAjFBsp__aE&feature=related
Really the question that causes conflict is the HOW.
TZM advocates creating a system that gives necessary resources to all people (including those in present 3rd world countries) by releasing all monetary restrictions on technology. No more patent rights, planned obsolescence. They also wish to eliminate profit driven limitations (e.g. reliance on oil, inferior quality production), the unnecessary reproduction of goods, unnecessary occupations (in favor of automation/cybernation), and inequality. Of course, what's missing in TZM is a working economic model.
This movement advocates a shift in the current system to work for the people by completely reforming the U.S. monetary system. This in turn will bring a great amount of integrity back to the system as corrupt practices lose power.
In a 'fuzzy' nutshell, yes.
I believe this group is more knowledgeable about economics and if this group is capable of coming up with answers/solutions which address TZM's desire for sustainability and unrestricted technological progress it may bridge both groups. (More support for both groups)
The thing is that this knowledge of economics that you mentions proves that central planning, as advocated by TZM/VP does not work. Plain and simple. As you very well stated non of us oppose the stated goals, we share those goals. The problem is that I and the rest know that central planning does not work, and not only will not acomplish the objective but will lead to more poverty and scarcity, even when Fresno or whoever promises the contrary (they are just following old marxist theory).
A monetary system is needed to efficiently distribute resources. That someone promises the contrary is quite irrelevant. I can promise things too. The fact still reamains.
3d printer that can potentially change the way goods are created
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VJpBj2mLEU&feature=player_embedded
3d printers are cool, but are extremely inefficient for mass production.
hugolp
03-04-2011, 03:03 AM
Thanks to Jacque Fresco, I know that economics is really all about allocating resources for social concern. Prior to being exposed to his work, I thought that economics was all about money and markets. May we all learn about how to design the future.
Money and markets are a way of allocating resources for "social" concerns (understanding social concerns as the preferences of each individual).
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 04:07 AM
I find extremely ironic that the TZM/VP is so aggressive against advertising when the whole TZM is quite a big advertisement campaing (very well executed btw). You and others even admit that not all the details of the movement are yet solved, but that does not stop you all from advertising the movement. The movies are a great example of terrific advertising.
The methods of persuasion that advertisers use do not have to be limited within contexts of profit maximization.
Advertising is not something new. What it is new is how big media can advertise. But when you talk to people, when you look for a job, when you try to hook up with a girl/boy you are advertising yourself. You are trying to show your best side (or some even lying about it). Information is limited and you are trying to inform in a favorable way to you. That is advertising. Its something that wont stop happening.
Advertising can seriously distort social values when applied within a model of increasing social status via maximizing purchasing power using prices that have no real referent to available global resources or basic human needs of the population.
In your dreamed society f.e. I am sure there could be organized campaigns to promote some change in the computer. Some will claim its just information for the people, others will claim its advertising. How do you deal with that? Do have a sort of government controlling all information to decide what its ifnormation and can go through and what its advertising and should be censored?
The resource based economy reflects an emergent society where the cybernetic system of global resource management is always adapting to best meet basic human needs. The idea of censorship is a result of necessarily conformed behavior essential to the function of a society. The less a society is hampered by depending on outmoded concepts of property, money, and markets for it's survival, the less the need for censorship as a means of maintaining the structural integrity of that society.
Information/advertising its in human nature. There is no need to make demagoguery about it.
Human nature changes. If human nature didn't change, we would still be living in caves. Understating the profound influence advertisements have on the collective psyche of a society is a form of demagoguery.
You just described the free market.
It's no surprise that so many folks in the libertarian movement tend to write off the resource based economy as a utopia, even though the designers intended such societies to be emergent instead. It's because the concept of a utopia seems to be at the forefront of their own minds considering how many consider the free market itself to be some kind of utopia.
What worries me is that in all that explanation seems to be embedded that you really know what will make others happy. That you somehow have the answer to the personal problems of all the people in the world. That thought leads to social engineering.
I consider Paul Dobransky to be a better source than Anthony Robbins in terms of methods of applying the scientific method to increase an individual's level of happiness, but neither increasing the general happiness of others nor solving everyone's personal problems is the goal of sociocyberneering.
Whats wrong with profit? Profits produce incentives and gives information on what needs to be done.
Perpetuating the system of self-maximizing purchasing power without regard for meeting people's basic human needs nor understanding the problems that ultimately arise when common heritage of the earth's resources is not adhered to has nothing to do with necessary relevant information regarding the application of the scientific method for social concern.
The thing is that this knowledge of economics that you mentions proves that central planning, as advocated by TZM/VP does not work. Plain and simple. As you very well stated non of us oppose the stated goals, we share those goals. The problem is that I and the rest know that central planning does not work, and not only will not acomplish the objective but will lead to more poverty and scarcity, even when Fresno or whoever promises the contrary (they are just following old marxist theory).
Central planning, in the historical context of the phrase, has always been applied to planning done based upon the opinions of individuals. Within the elegantly designed dynamic systems approach Fresco advocates, contrary opinions and objectives are rendered unworkable since the language itself is not open to any interpretation based upon the agenda or planning of individual opinion.
A monetary system is needed to efficiently distribute resources. That someone promises the contrary is quite irrelevant. I can promise things too. The fact still reamains.
Many hunter gatherer societies today disprove your purported fact, and human societies efficiently distributed resources without a monetary system for far longer than they did otherwise.
3d printers are cool, but are extremely inefficient for mass production.
Folks once considered automobiles to be a quaint development that would never efficiently replace horses on a mass scale. 3D printing can easily render the entire construction industry, the most hazardous occupational industry on the planet, entirely irrelevant due to obvious inefficiency.
Money and markets are a way of allocating resources for "social" concerns (understanding social concerns as the preferences of each individual).
The various concerns of individuals and how they are addressed within a monetary system are always distorted by the end game of self-maximizing purchasing power.
genanmer
03-04-2011, 04:30 AM
I find extremely ironic that the TZM/VP is so aggressive against advertising when the whole TZM is quite a big advertisement campaing (very well executed btw). You and others even admit that not all the details of the movement are yet solved, but that does not stop you all from advertising the movement. The movies are a great example of terrific advertising.
Advertising is not something new. What it is new is how big media can advertise. But when you talk to people, when you look for a job, when you try to hook up with a girl/boy you are advertising yourself. You are trying to show your best side (or some even lying about it). Information is limited and you are trying to inform in a favorable way to you. That is advertising. Its something that wont stop happening.
In your dreamed society f.e. I am sure there could be organized campaigns to promote some change in the computer. Some will claim its just information for the people, others will claim its advertising. How do you deal with that? Do have a sort of government controlling all information to decide what its ifnormation and can go through and what its advertising and should be censored?
Information/advertising its in human nature. There is no need to make demagoguery about it.
You left out the context. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to all the commercials, billboards, junkmail, spam, and other business practices used to create an artificial Need for people to want a product/service they offer. I say artificial because there is no substance to the product/service on it's own. It only continues to exist because there is a monetary incentive, profit.
If you apply the same concept to hooking up, it's using manipulation to have a one-night stand rather than being upfront with your intentions.
So while TZM may lack answers, they are working to solve them.
Point is the incentive must be based on integrity.
You just described the free market.
Well if it fulfills all those desires and doesn't hurt anyone, great.
What worries me is that in all that explanation seems to be embedded that you really know what will make others happy. That you somehow have the answer to the personal problems of all the people in the world. That thought leads to social engineering.
eh, I'm here because I lack answers. I'm not telling people what they should or should not like. I'm offering my own perspective. I used the model from Tony Robbins because that has worked for myself and a few million other people without the use of force.
Whats wrong with profit? Profits produce incentives and gives information on what needs to be done.
Profit is a problem when it is a better business practice to bribe, cheat, steal, coerce, lie, and cause suffering. A few examples: Monsanto's use of gmo patent's to force control over farms. Oil and car companies buying patent rights to alternative fuels and suppressing them. Fox news.
The thing is that this knowledge of economics that you mentions proves that central planning, as advocated by TZM/VP does not work. Plain and simple. As you very well stated non of us oppose the stated goals, we share those goals. The problem is that I and the rest know that central planning does not work, and not only will not acomplish the objective but will lead to more poverty and scarcity, even when Fresno or whoever promises the contrary (they are just following old marxist theory).
Sorry I disagree. I won't jump to any conclusion until I KNOW the facts from both perspectives.
That is from the free market perspective and TZM's. In order to do that I must understand both sides from their views first.
A monetary system is needed to efficiently distribute resources. That someone promises the contrary is quite irrelevant. I can promise things too. The fact still reamains.
Unfortunately again, this is not something that can be answered without an abundance paradigm. All I can say is that a demonstration research city will either prove or disprove Fresco's claims. The science on distributing specific resources will either support or falsify many of the things he claims..
On a sidenote: someone mentioned space as a resource earlier. Modular housing units would allow additional levels to be stacked ontop of existing units
3d printers are cool, but are extremely inefficient for mass production.
If it threatens the manufacturing industry it probably won't be improved to be capable of mass production. (example of halting technology)
hugolp
03-04-2011, 05:28 AM
You left out the context. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to all the commercials, billboards, junkmail, spam, and other business practices used to create an artificial Need for people to want a product/service they offer. I say artificial because there is no substance to the product/service on it's own. It only continues to exist because there is a monetary incentive, profit.
If you apply the same concept to hooking up, it's using manipulation to have a one-night stand rather than being upfront with your intentions.
What is or is not manipulation is subjective. What seems acceptable saying for hooking changes from country to country. In some countries if you dont do what you think right now is manipulation you would be considered a weirdo. And that is exaclty my point. What you consider proper advertisment and punishable advertisment is just your subjective opinion. Even inside TZM/VP people will have different views on this. And there is no way around it. When giving information about yourself or a product what constitutes manipulation, good or bad advertisment, is subjective.
Saying that in your society all the information transmition will be non-manipulative makes no sense, because non-manipulative is not an objective concept. Does this makes sense?
So while TZM may lack answers, they are working to solve them.
Point is the incentive must be based on integrity.
Integrity is again a subjective quality.
Well if it fulfills all those desires and doesn't hurt anyone, great.
I suspect the way you are using "hurting someone" is again subjective.
eh, I'm here because I lack answers. I'm not telling people what they should or should not like. I'm offering my own perspective. I used the model from Tony Robbins because that has worked for myself and a few million other people without the use of force.
Profit is a problem when it is a better business practice to bribe, cheat, steal, coerce, lie, and cause suffering. A few examples: Monsanto's use of gmo patent's to force control over farms. Oil and car companies buying patent rights to alternative fuels and suppressing them. Fox news.
Patents are not free market.
Sorry I disagree. I won't jump to any conclusion until I KNOW the facts from both perspectives.
That is from the free market perspective and TZM's. In order to do that I must understand both sides from their views first.
Unfortunately again, this is not something that can be answered without an abundance paradigm. All I can say is that a demonstration research city will either prove or disprove Fresco's claims. The science on distributing specific resources will either support or falsify many of the things he claims..
See, this is the way to go. If you think something is possible go and try it (as long as you dont force anyone into it, this has to be stressed to infinity).
Btw, note the irony that you can try and alocate resources for this because of what is left of the market system. In the centrally planned system the computer would decide.
On a sidenote: someone mentioned space as a resource earlier. Modular housing units would allow additional levels to be stacked ontop of existing units
The units at the bottom have a limit of the weigth they can support. Building a unit capable of supporting a lot of weight is expensive and, if no other units end up on top, a big waste.
I am an engineer. Engineering and in general building things is always a compromise between functionality and cost.
If it threatens the manufacturing industry it probably won't be improved to be capable of mass production. (example of halting technology)
The manufacturing industry uses real 3D printers. Printers that "print" in metals and make strong 3d models. They use them mainly to test new designs because as I said before a 3d printer is extremely inefficient compared to mass production.
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 08:34 AM
What is or is not manipulation is subjective. What seems acceptable saying for hooking changes from country to country. In some countries if you dont do what you think right now is manipulation you would be considered a weirdo. And that is exaclty my point. What you consider proper advertisment and punishable advertisment is just your subjective opinion. Even inside TZM/VP people will have different views on this. And there is no way around it. When giving information about yourself or a product what constitutes manipulation, good or bad advertisment, is subjective.
The opinions of each individual is based entirely upon that individual's values, and values and shaped within the context of environment.
Saying that in your society all the information transmition will be non-manipulative makes no sense, because non-manipulative is not an objective concept. Does this makes sense?
When market values dominate social policy, self-maximizing purchasing power is encouraged over social responsibility.
Integrity is again a subjective quality.
Integrity, morality, and ethics are representations of an individual's values, and those values are shaped within the context of environment.
I suspect the way you are using "hurting someone" is again subjective.
It all depends on the individual's values. If Romans don't believe they're hurting anyone when they feed Christians to the lions, then that perspective reflects their values.
Patents are not free market.
Patent laws, like all laws, exist to protect an established culture. Cultures more thoroughly dominated by market values tend to need more laws to prevent the society itself from being undermined by socially irresponsible practices of self-maximizing purchasing power, but eventually those laws wind up being created and enforced by those with the most financial influence with the intent to maintain and self-maximize their purchasing power.
See, this is the way to go. If you think something is possible go and try it (as long as you dont force anyone into it, this has to be stressed to infinity).
Three sentences ago you mentioned that "hurting someone" is subjective, but here you it would seem that "forcing someone" is an issue that cannot be overstressed. Ultimately, within the free market system, the folks who decide what constitutes the difference between "hurting someone" and "forcing someone" will be those who have enough financial influence to actually have an impact in society regarding whether or not somebody else is going to be "forced" or "hurt" in order to comply with the system.
Btw, note the irony that you can try and alocate resources for this because of what is left of the market system. In the centrally planned system the computer would decide.
In the resource based economy, if somebody had an alternative view of how to allocate the resources toward designing a different societal structure or city, they could easily access the computer and explain to the computer in precise engineering language what specifics they had in mind for this particular design and the computer would handle the logistical computations regarding its technical feasibility and resources available for such a project.
It would be a lot easier to allocate resources toward designing new societal structures in a resource based economy that it would be to scrounge up nickels and dimes to bargain for the resources to do it in a free market system.
The units at the bottom have a limit of the weigth they can support. Building a unit capable of supporting a lot of weight is expensive and, if no other units end up on top, a big waste.
I am an engineer. Engineering and in general building things is always a compromise between functionality and cost.
The profitability of certain building designs according to market values hinders the development of the kind of dwellings we truly can afford to live in if you consider affordability in the true economic sense of the global inventory of available resources and how those resources are allocated toward addressing social concerns.
The manufacturing industry uses real 3D printers. Printers that "print" in metals and make strong 3d models. They use them mainly to test new designs because as I said before a 3d printer is extremely inefficient compared to mass production.
Build those printers on a bigger scale an you'll have 3D printers that can build entire homes without the need for human labor. Automation has consistently proven itself to be more efficient than human labor.
Travlyr
03-04-2011, 08:39 AM
Jim Casey, what resources are scarce on a global scale?
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 09:05 AM
Jim Casey, what resources are scarce on a global scale?
Rare earth elements are what I would presume to be scarcest, but global resource survey analysis would most accurately quantify logistical data regarding specifics.
Travlyr
03-04-2011, 09:13 AM
Right. The Venus Project is lying to everyone. Basic necessities are not scarce ... they are abundant. We don't want or need anybody controlling our lives or figuring stuff out for us. Ron Paul promotes honest sound money as the key to liberty. If you wish to live a free life, then promote his ideas. He knows what he is talking about. End The FED and all Central Banks/Planners. ASAP.
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 09:33 AM
Right. The Venus Project is lying to everyone. Basic necessities are not scarce ... they are abundant. We don't want or need anybody controlling our lives or figuring stuff out for us. Ron Paul promotes honest sound money as the key to liberty. If you wish to live a free life, then promote his ideas. He knows what he is talking about. End The FED and all Central Banks/Planners. ASAP.
Folks do turn decision making powers over to computers every day. Here's one more example of decisions that folks are going to be turning over to computers more and more as the technology becomes more accessible, the decisions made when driving a car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Fxp3HK6DI
Basic necessities may not seem scarce for you, but their inaccessibility is a reality for the millions of individuals living in life-threatening poverty conditions. Political decisions made based upon opinions of elected officials won't put food in the mouths of starving people for whom it is unprofitable to feed, regardless of how much those officials would like to assert their plans for the direction of the monetary system.
Travlyr
03-04-2011, 09:43 AM
Folks do turn over decision making powers over to computers every day. Here's one more example of a decision that folks are going to be turning over to computers more and more as the technology becomes more accessible, the decisions made when driving a car:
Again, a lot of us don't want anything to do with your stupid crap. Your computer may get a virus and accidentally kill millions of people just like the central planners who are in charge now are doing.
Basic necessities may seem scarce for you, but it is a reality for the millions of individuals living in life-threatening poverty conditions. Political decisions made based upon opinions of elected officials won't put food in the mouths of starving people for whom it is unprofitable to feed, regardless of how much those officials would like to assert their plans for the direction of the monetary system.
We don't want a new boss replacing the old boss. We want to live free prosperous lives.
Read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard, "The Case For Gold" & "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" by Ron Paul, and "A Cross of Gold" by Edwin Vieira to learn how to live a life of liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 10:07 AM
Again, a lot of us don't want anything to do with your stupid crap. Your computer may get a virus and accidentally kill millions of people just like the central planners who are in charge now are doing.
What any individual wants is based upon that individual's values, and those values are shaped within the context of the environment. Security is a basic human need regardless of differing individual values, and computers have repeatedly been proven highly effective at improving safety conditions in ways that folks couldn't possible do without them.
We don't want a new boss replacing the old boss. We want to live free prosperous lives.
So long as folks live within a monetary system, the level of freedom and prosperity any individuals have are limited to the extent of their purchasing power.
Read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard, "The Case For Gold" & "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" by Ron Paul, and "A Cross of Gold" by Edwin Vieira to learn how to live a life of liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Undoubtedly all those works of literature provide expert analysis of what can be achieved for society within a monetary market system.
The fundamental distinction to be made is that economics really has nothing to do with the concepts of property, money, or markets. Economics has to do with the means of inventorying the earth's resources and allocating them for social concern.
Travlyr
03-04-2011, 10:23 AM
The fundamental distinction to be made is that economics really has nothing to do with the concepts of property, money, or markets. Economics has to do with the means of inventorying the earth's resources and allocating them for social concern.
You really don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you? You spout nonsense without comprehension. You could learn some basic truths from Murray N. Rothbard, or Ron Paul.
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 10:36 AM
You really don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you? You spout nonsense without comprehension. You could learn some basic truths from Murray N. Rothbard, or Ron Paul.
I'm sure there are many individuals whose opinions about money are considered very valuable and often praised as truth, Paul and Rothbard included.
There were also many scientists who wrote volumes about how man could never fly and their works were praised as truth for centuries.
justinc.1089
03-04-2011, 10:39 AM
So long as folks live within a monetary system, the level of freedom and prosperity any individuals have are limited to the extent of their purchasing power.
The fundamental distinction to be made is that economics really has nothing to do with the concepts of property, money, or markets.
/Facepalm
Ok, you're right. Money forces us to live within the confines of our purchasing power. That's correct. So let's say you're right about how we can just get rid of monetary systems and get rid of those confines too as a result.
I want a turkey sandwich to eat for lunch. I don't have any turkey, lettuce, or bread. So I'm going to go use my money... oh wait. Hmm. Ok, let me see what the turkey, lettuce, and bread guy wants or needs. Ok turkey guy needs tires for his car, but that's worth like months and months of turkey. That's going to get confusing, and I wonder what the tire guy wants me to give him for tires so I can give tires to the turkey guy? Oh wait, I have to figure out what the lettuce and bread guy want me to give them for some bread and lettuce first before I figure out how to get tires for the turkey guy.
Yeah. That is really a much better system than money.
But everyone will just give away what they produce for nothing. Ok. Then what's to stop the greedy people from going and getting weapons, then refusing to give away what they produce while still getting stuff from other people if everyone is supposed to just give away everything they make? The people that are greedy in a monetary system will be far more effective at taking things from people in a world with no money than in a world with money.
I'm seriously not getting your point here.
A monetary system is NATURAL. It will ALWAYS occur, no matter what you do. Money is simply a good that is effective for trading. Its a good just like an apple, turky, lettuce, bread, bricks, or whatever. It just happens that its purpose is to be traded for other goods because it has properties that make it effective for trading.
It is not the elimination of money that will bring prosperity, but the acceptance of ALL kinds of money by letting the free market choose what is money and what is not money that will bring about the greatest prosperity.
justinc.1089
03-04-2011, 10:46 AM
I'm sure there are many individuals whose opinions about money are considered very valuable and often praised as truth, Paul and Rothbard included.
There were also many scientists who wrote volumes about how man could never fly and their works were praised as truth for centuries.
You know what? I bet the people that helped man fly read those works too. You know, to find out if they were right or wrong...
If you don't have an open mind you can't learn the truth because you won't let anything into your closed mind. You're simply rambling off emotional, nonsense that amounts to saying money is wrong, and I'm right. Why don't you explain how the needed and/or desired amounts of goods and services will be produced without price signals telling the producers how much is needed and/or desired???
Jim Casey
03-04-2011, 11:07 AM
Ok, you're right. Money forces us to live within the confines of our purchasing power. That's correct. So let's say you're right about how we can just get rid of monetary systems and get rid of those confines too as a result.
I do welcome this direction.
I want a turkey sandwich to eat for lunch. I don't have any turkey, lettuce, or bread. So I'm going to go use my money... oh wait. Hmm. Ok, let me see what the turkey, lettuce, and bread guy wants or needs. Ok turkey guy needs tires for his car, but that's worth like months and months of turkey. That's going to get confusing, and I wonder what the tire guy wants me to give him for tires so I can give tires to the turkey guy? Oh wait, I have to figure out what the lettuce and bread guy want me to give them for some bread and lettuce first before I figure out how to get tires for the turkey guy.
This predicament presumes property ownership of the turkey, lettuce and bread and some kind of need to trade for the sake of trade for the sandwich to be made.
Within an elegantly designed systems approach, turkey sandwiches are made accessible to everyone thus negating the need for the concept of property, money, or markets.
Yeah. That is really a much better system than money.What I'm proposing is a much better system, because nobody is denied access to turkey sandwiches due to lack of purchasing power.
But everyone will just give away what they produce for nothing. Ok. Then what's to stop the greedy people from going and getting weapons, then refusing to give away what they produce while still getting stuff from other people if everyone is supposed to just give away everything they make? The people that are greedy in a monetary system will be far more effective at taking things from people in a world with no money than in a world with money.
The concepts of property and theft are rooted in scarcity. Humans lived for thousands of years as hunter gatherers without needing to engage in trade to survive.
I'm seriously not getting your point here.
There is no need to steal anybody else's stuff when everybody has access to what they need.
A monetary system is NATURAL. It will ALWAYS occur, no matter what you do. Money is simply a good that is effective for trading. Its a good just like an apple, turky, lettuce, bread, bricks, or whatever. It just happens that its purpose is to be traded for other goods because it has properties that make it effective for trading.
Monetary systems have not always occurred, and within many hunter gatherer tribes today those systems still don't occur within those societies. Whatever opinions folks have regarding what is natural, all those opinions are based upon their own values, values that are shaped by the environment.
It is not the elimination of money that will bring prosperity, but the acceptance of ALL kinds of money by letting the free market choose what is money and what is not money that will bring about the greatest prosperity.
The amount of prosperity within any monetary system will continue to be limited by the level of purchasing power an individual has within that system.
The application of the scientific method towards allocating global resources for social concern will bring true prosperity and access abundance in ways that are absolutely impossible to do within the restraints of a market system.
You know what? I bet the people that helped man fly read those works too. You know, to find out if they were right or wrong...
The Wright brothers did not read those works, nor did they need to read them in order to disprove them.
If you don't have an open mind you can't learn the truth because you won't let anything into your closed mind. You're simply rambling off emotional, nonsense that amounts to saying money is wrong, and I'm right. Why don't you explain how the needed and/or desired amounts of goods and services will be produced without price signals telling the producers how much is needed and/or desired???
Surveys of human need translate productive quantities. If you need 2 or 3 or 10 turkey sandwiches a day, the production will always err on the side of surplus.
Desires are based upon values, not needs. Prices don't reflect real needs or desires, but rather willingness to part with so much purchasing power to acquire or relinquish the monetarily priced property.
genanmer
03-04-2011, 01:23 PM
Let's try it this way
What are the 10 biggest issues you have with TVP?
silverhandorder
03-04-2011, 01:32 PM
@genanmer
I have no issues with TVP as long as they maintain Non Aggression Principle. I wouldn't join TVP unless I see this computer perform as advertised.
edit: To anyone who didn't know Jim Casey is trolling ignore him.
dannno
03-04-2011, 01:56 PM
Within an elegantly designed systems approach, turkey sandwiches are made accessible to everyone thus negating the need for the concept of property, money, or markets.
What I'm proposing is a much better system, because nobody is denied access to turkey sandwiches due to lack of purchasing power.
Ok, here's the thing. I don't believe you. I don't believe that somebody is going to produce enough turkeys for everyone, whether it is the old fashioned way or whether it is a robot turkey farm. IF enough turkeys HAPPEN to be produced because that is something society is focused on, I believe there will be a lot of shortcomings in other areas, and the people producing turkeys would rather keep their turkeys and trade for the items that we are short of. There are a lot of things people go to work and produce every day that they wouldn't do if they weren't getting paid to do it. It might be something that can't be automated, or is difficult to automate. If it's not economically viable to automate, then automating it in the ZM world will suck too, and people are not going to have a strong desire to do it.
What if there is something the turkey farmer wants that the Zeitgeist computer system decides there isn't enough of for everyone, and thus doesn't produce it, but then somebody goes out and produces it anyway and so the turkey farmer decides to hold back some turkeys and trade them for this good or service that is produced outside of the system? Then BAM, your system is short turkeys because the person who is making this other stuff isn't going to want turkeys in return unless they can get something they want for them. If it's a robot turkey farm, I don't believe it will be maintained to be a viable long-term solution unless there is ownership. Somebody has to have a horse in the race.. Would you rather have a turkey sandwich, or spend several hours going to fix the problems at the turkey factory? Shit, there's a ham sandwich, that factory hasn't broken down yet, I'll just have one of those. That's what is going to happen. It hasn't worked in the past, and these types of systems have led to the deaths of millions of innocent people. You can't ask people to try something on a large scale that has killed this many people without providing a test case that WORKS.
What you need to do, is get together with a few thousand other TVP people, and create a society like this on a small scale where everyone has everything they need. You may require a free society to do this, because currently the government is going to try and fuck you over if you go out and do this on your own. That's where we come in, we want a free society where you can do your test tube experiment to see if it will work. We encourage you to try it, and want you to have the freedom to try it.. but you haven't shown us anything that proves that we aren't going to self destruct if we just jump into your system.
dannno
03-04-2011, 01:57 PM
edit: To anyone who didn't know Jim Casey is trolling ignore him.
Meh, he at least poses the questions in an easy to debunk way that may be helpful for other VP folks here.
silverhandorder
03-04-2011, 02:05 PM
Actually he posts giberish i don't think even VP people would know wtf he is saying.
Wesker1982
03-04-2011, 02:07 PM
Meh, he at least poses the questions in an easy to debunk way that may be helpful for other VP folks here.
qft
dannno
03-04-2011, 02:18 PM
Actually he posts giberish i don't think even VP people would know wtf he is saying.
Hah, no, that's not true. Other VP people know exactly what he's talking about. I argue with my roommate about this stuff all the time and they talk exactly alike.. and I have noticed Jim Casey posting while my roommate is doing something else so I have ruled out that they are the same person :p
dannno
03-04-2011, 02:23 PM
Actually he posts giberish i don't think even VP people would know wtf he is saying.
If you're interested where this language comes from, checkout "Future By Design" "Where are We Now?" and "Where are We Going?"
One of those films actually has some pretty compelling arguments against free markets, I think it was "Where are We Going?". They weren't valid arguments against free markets, but they were compelling, especially if you aren't familiar with how true free markets can function.
Jim Casey
03-07-2011, 03:25 AM
Explaining life without money to folks who have no frame of reference for such a life seems like explaining life with money to folks who also have no frame of reference for such a life.
Here's a video called "The Mars Project" described as such:
I take you to a world of Communist hunter-gatherers, Utopian agriculturalists, magic i-pods and the Mars Project with Pierre Mosaic. Kick back and let me brainwash your inefficient centralized nervous system. This is the working location for the ZM Linguistic Team.
http://dotsub.com/view/66d4bf81-376b-420c-a301-8153e21701ae
The opposition to TZM is so ripe for this kind of satire.
Wesker1982
04-07-2011, 10:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNoUW4UTpI&feature=feedu
Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 10:07 AM
During my trip to Haiti, I got into a discussion with my fellow volunteers about the financial crisis. Things were going quite well as we all agreed that the rich investment bankers deserved no taxpayer bailout. However, my hopes were dashed when one of the more intellectual guys suddenly declared the problem was capitalism, and that a "resource-based economy" would relieve the world of scarcity.
Venus Needs Some Austrians: http://mises.org/daily/4636
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.