Mike Fleming
-
Posts
359 -
Joined
Posts posted by Mike Fleming
-
-
I have a theory that Zeitgeisters don't want to see the end of government because they want to impose their view of the world on the rest of us and they know government is the only mechanism by which they can do so. So it doesn't surprise me to see Peter Joseph trying to convince people that government will always be around and we are wasting our time trying to rid the world of it.
The end of government and it's faux authority before the Zeitgeisters can impose their vision on the world is a terrible prospect from their point of view.
-
If there's no real need for 90% of the population to work, what reason is there, to stick to using money?
Here's the thing,
Money was a concept created by the market (and eventually co-opted by the state).
TZMer's often talk about how they don't like money. Do you wish to ban it? And if so, how exactly?
If the free market eventually says that it has no use for the money product, just like has happened for many products, that is fine. But if the market decides it wants money, how will TZMer's deal with this reality? Personally, I am fine with whatever the free market decides. When you look at things like Bitcoin for example, it is clear, at this time, the market wants a money system.
There will always be scarcity of some type. For example, an original painting. There is only one of them but, if it is regarded as good, it will be wanted by many. How does the VP determine who gets it?
-
There are already computer programs today that are created and run by corporations to allow them to better and more efficiently serve the market or use their resources if you will. This is an ongoing evolutionary process.
It seems to me that the Venus Project wants to take this over completely and just be, basically, the only company. You can't do this without having a central authority, which I guess is why they are so keen on central governmental ideas, if not the current governments themselves.
I actually knew a Zeitgeist enthusiast who was always talking about how we need technicians to control everything. It's all just central planning. But if the VP wants to design and develop computer programs then that is their perogative. Just so long as they don't go to any of the govts and try to get them to impose them on everyone. As long as they do it in a voluntary sense, that is, they go to customers and say they have the most efficient, and therefore cheaper means, of providing products. I'm fine with that.
-
I think part of it is as well, my ability to learn things has improved so much.
A lot of watching TV and movies early on in my adult life was me trying to glean information. I was like a starving man searching in garbage cans desperately for any kind of sustenance. Now that I've found good sources and improved my own way of thinking and learning, I guess the garbage cans look pretty stinky and uninviting now. Not sure if that analogy works or not, just came up with it on the spot
And yes, the number of times I hear different people repeat something that has been on the "news" the night before almost word for word is quite creepy. TV zombieland.
-
Also, when this software is developed that is designed to efficiently allocate resources, do we all have to abide by it's decisions? And what happens if we don't?
-
I thought Stef handled it mostly pretty well. It wasn't perfect of course but then what is.
He approached the whole thing like he was interested and then asked questions. He put forward good well-reasoned and well-articulated arguments. It was almost the complete opposite of what PJ did. I understand it could be frustrating for Stefan at some points but the objective never was to change PJ's mind. The objective was to put well-reasoned arguments in front of the Zeitgeist followers. You aren't going to convince all of them either but I bet it put a lot of doubt in some of their minds and there will be some number of them, that will gravitate away from TZM as a result. Plus, the debate is there forever now for anyone to look at and examine.
As for the argument, well, socialism is all about a lack of personal responsibility imo. In this case they have had to concede that government can't look after them, so it's going to be the brilliant machines that will do it instead.
-
I used to be a big movie watcher. I was always looking for the latest movies that came out. Always searching for the gems that no-one knew about. Had a reasonably big DVD collection. It used to be something I looked forward to. I was always looking for times when I could indulge in watching maybe a few hours of movies.
And then I found economics. And philosophy. And the truth about the world.
And I lost interest in movies at the same time.
And now I couldn't tell you what the big movies of the year were. Or even many at all. Or even give recommendations about good movies to watch. I've just lost interest. In the last 5 years there have been a few movies that I've watched, but not all that many. And I'm finding myself becoming even less interested as time goes by.
Is this just me? I've wondered if maybe it's just an age thing or whatever but it did seem to coincide almost perfectly with my philosophical interests, so I don't know...
-
How much did you pay for the Universe? Do you pay to Tesla for using electricity? How much you pay Einstein for being able to use your computer? Have you ever received any kind of heritage from a family member? Isn't the place you live in an heritage by itself?
How much you pay to be born? How much you pay the Sun for it to shine? Can you pay to be loved and respected, or is that something you earn based on virtuous actions?
"How much did you pay for the Universe?"
Nothing. And don't get anything from it unless I get off my butt (or someone gives me something that they or someone else worked for).
"Do you pay to Tesla for using electricity?"
No. I pay the electric company.
"How much you pay Einstein for being able to use your computer?"
Nothing. I bought it from Dell. I pay the electric company to power it. I pay the internet service provider for my internet connection to it.
"Have you ever received any kind of heritage from a family member?"
Actually no. But let's say I had. That is a gift. At some point somebody had to work for it and then it was gifted.
"How much you pay to be born?"
Nothing. But my parents sure payed a lot.
"How much you pay the Sun for it to shine?"
Nothing. But I don't get anywhere near enough from it directly to survive. And all the indirect stuff (like food and water) requires work.
"Can you pay to be loved and respected, or is that something you earn based on virtuous actions?"
I can't pay someone to love and respect me, no. At least not real love and respect. But that isn't something tangible.
Is it just free stuff that you want?
(Incidentally, I am arcturus for anyone confused in this thread, I've changed to my real name).
-
I'm sorry as evidenced previously I don't know how to break a quote up into the components I wish to address as I could with the last system.
"You can't militarily hold people down over the long term."
If you define the State as "The right and obligation of a select group to use force in a given geographical area" then to claim that Military force can't be used to suppress people you would have to ignore thousands of years of history. It's what States do.
"Only the widespread belief in government enables the group calling themselves government to get away with what they do. That comes from centuries of tradition and indoctrination. "
So without centuries of tradition and indoctrination there would be no State?. This means that States have always existed because otherwise there would have been a time when there was not centuries of tradition and indoctrination, in which case there would seem little need for tradition and indoctrination. The other posibility is that the factors you specify are not the only ones that apply.
" Establishing a tradition whereby a few "enlightened" would look after them would have been a lot easier to foist upon them. And at a lot less cost."
It could also be said that the people of times previous were a lot more independent and had a greater understanding of the desirability of their own property as they were surely more involved in acquiring it. It could therefore be argued that getting them to part with their hard won resources would have involved greater difficulty. Especially if the individual(s) attempting to do so were in command of less sophisticated arguments, which would seem to be a given.
I'm having trouble with the breaking up quotes too.
Yes, the state is defined the way you say but think about it really. States can only be competitive in the world if people "believe" they are free. Otherwise, the economy grinds to a halt and you can't build an effective force on top of a dead economy. As many people as possible will flee to "free" nations. Which as we know are relatively free, not actually free, but anyway, that's what happens.
My contention is that, like with many traditions, the state could only be established in times that were less enlightened. Then, like with many traditions, it is very difficult to get rid of, which is why you still see it in modern times. If we were to break the tradition, it is extremely unlikely, given past experience with bad traditions that were purged from society (eg. slavery) that it would return. And we can see that in a competitive free market system, it would be very difficult to divert resources to such a task (creating a government) when you are trying to make a profit and keep your company on an even keel.
-
"Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me."
I believe the conjecture is that people currently rich have the ability to spend enough to ensure they can maintain their fortune. The alternative is believing that people who have striven to become rich are going to fail to strive to continue to be rich. Taken the current situation of 4% sociopaths do you think that a "private army" couldn't be established?. The only reason it is unnecessary for anyone to develop a "private army" is that the State is cheaper.
" Only childhood indoctrination can make people obey the state and how would you achieve that in a free and open, educated society?"
Sure but these two are arguing about how to achieve such a society, not what problems such a society would have.[EDIT] or more precisely why the other guys plan won't work.
"Military force could subdue people initially but it never works in the long run. And doing so would be so expensive with so little likelihood of payoff, even if it was successful, that I don't even think that is likely."
Except what you are describing must have been the start of the State. Unless everybody voluntarily accepted it.
Yes, they could develop their own private security or army if you will, but so what? To what end? It is just throwing money down the drain when you go beyond your own security needs. You can't militarily hold people down over the long term. This has been self-evident so many times over the centuries and you've even seen it regularly over the last century. Only the widespread belief in government enables the group calling themselves government to get away with what they do. That comes from centuries of tradition and indoctrination.
As for the last part where you are saying it was the start of the state. Life was very different back then (1000's of years ago). These were a primitive and superstitious people that knew very little about the world and were very, very poor. Establishing a tradition whereby a few "enlightened" would look after them would have been a lot easier to foist upon them. And at a lot less cost.
-
I don't agree that the state came out of the free market at all. Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me. Only childhood indoctrination can make people obey the state and how would you achieve that in a free and open, educated society? Military force could subdue people initially but it never works in the long run. And doing so would be so expensive with so little likelihood of payoff, even if it was successful, that I don't even think that is likely.
It only worked the first time because people were so poor and uneducated back in Earth's ancient past and became a tradition. Once a bad tradition is purged, people don't go back en masse to it.
-
arcturus, why would you feel motivated to contribute in a creative way, if you are working in order to avoid death? You either work or die, isn't that the definition of slavery?
How much more motivated and creative you would be, if you were actually doing it in order to help others without asking for anything in return? Isn't that the definition of generosity?
You could ask Stefan, if he is doing this show for the money, or because he wants to make a positive difference in our lives? And might find out that the most creative people only manage to be creative because they do something they love, while helping others.
How much more creative would Stefan be, if he didn't have to worry so much about money?
There's no such a thing as a free lunch. You need food to survive. You must obtain that food in some way. If you are not working for it yourself then you have enslaved someone else to do it for you. The other option is you can trade for it by making goods or providing services to others.
So slavery is you getting someone else to provide the things you need to survive so that you don't have to work yourself, not you working for them yourself.
Robots are as yet not as capable as humans. Just try getting a robot, any robot, to do all the things that a human can do and you'll find it is not capable of doing so.
So at this point in time, there are 2 options work for your food or die. There is no such thing as a free lunch in this universe.
-
Resource Based Economy, a transition Perspective:
I still have a cell phone factory, but I understand that the whole idea behind having a factory is to make cellphones available to people and not to make a profit for myself in the expense of others. I don't sell cellphones, I make them to last and give them away for free,
How is selling cellphones making a profit at the expense of others? I want a cellphone. The cellphone maker (and employees) want money. We make the exchange. Win-win.
Why bother going to the effort of making cellphones if you aren't going to get anything from it? You're spending your capital (or resources) and getting nothing in return. Would you go to all that effort without getting anything in return? And if so, can I have a free cellphone?
-
My belief is that Sam Harris is, strangely enough given his statements on the word, a fearful atheist. IMO the reason he supports the US State is that he fears the effects of extremist religion and believes that Statism is the natural enemy of those forces.
I think you are probably correct on that. Although it is obviously an irrational fear. After all, it is quite clear there is far more to fear from the state. That it has vastly more power than religion.
Sam seems to be a victim of propaganda in that sense. He doesn't want to apply skepticism to the state.
-
Harris is some one I want to like. He is generally intelligent, thoughtful, calm and rational.
Unfortunately, he also comes across as a bit of a neocon statist. Many times I've heard him say things which seem to claim that Islam is worse than Christianity. And he blames 911 on religion? No Sam, it's your wonderful government that I've heard you praise many times. As long as the right party is in of course.
His idea's around morality, about achieving the best possible things for the most people are all too reminiscent of welfare to me. And no doubt government has a large role in his ideas. Not unusual for his type.
btw, I listened to the podcast and it was pretty much the same I've always heard from him, that confirms the above mostly, imo.
-
I am the big brother and I bullied my little brother.
Isn't it true though that bullies don't just come from nowhere? My mother bullied me and I coped by bullying my brother. In fact, rarely was I told off for bullying my brother because I used the exact same tactics that my mother used on me.
-
Hi,
I noticed Stef has put a new video but thought I'd chime in on this issue.
I have an emotionally abusive mother. Basically, my entire life she has been attacking me for my faults. She doesn't swear, shout (well, not much) , call names or anything like that. It is far more insidious. She uses her intimate knowledge of me and my brother as ways of attacking us and putting us down. Making us feel inadequate. Of course to an outsider that sees one of these incidents by themselves, it is seen as no big deal. But cumulatively it really builds up inside you. I was in denial for years as an adult before I finally started to accept it in my late 20's. In the meantime of course, when you don't deal with it, it does all kind of damage to your life. My brother has coped with it even less well than I have and now has virtually lost the will to live after suffering attack after attack. He drinks and smokes his days away now. The guilt that is foisted upon you for not wanting to take part in family gathering's and not basically be a punching bag comes not just from them but from society as a whole.
Now in my late 30's, I'm in the process now of telling them, finally to "fuck off" once and for all. You have to accept in your mind that it's abuse and also that this is what these people are like. They don't change and they'll ruin your life if you let them. I only need to look at the wreckage of my mother's extended family, all divorced, mostly everyone hates each other and doesn't talk to each other or their children to see what can happen.
Don't know if that helps or not but maternal emotional abuse is an issue that strikes deep with me.
-
This one could be an interesting one to comment on. He talks about the reason for the downturn being droids are taking all the blue collar jobs. Puts stats up to back them up and posits the solution as a "guaranteed salary for everyone" regardless if they work or not. Presumably through govt taxation. It's well-presented but I feel like it's missing a whole bunch of stuff and he's generalised to get the result that he wants. Might be a good one for Stef to refute....
Economist Andrew McAfee suggests that, yes, probably, droids will take our jobs -- or at least the kinds of jobs we know now. In this far-seeing talk, he thinks through what future jobs might look like
-
So you admit you have the capacity to agree or disagree with something?I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on. Except determinism.
So you're not a determinist.
BRAVO.
My agreement and disgreement were pre-determined based on my orginal programming and all subsequent experiences I have that have modified that programming.
If you actually think about it, much of the stuff Stef talks about, peaceful parenting leading to a more peaceful world, is based on deterministic ideas.
-
Well, one of the things you could start with is to try actually addressing my arguments. I laid them out in summary on the last Sunday show, but you can also find a YouTube playlist with the arguments in far more detail - I put the arguments out years ago, but no determinist to my knowledge has ever actually addressed any of the positions I have put forward, which is why I find talking with determinists so fundamentally boring, they simply have it seems to me no capacity to listen or process new information at all, which is why determinism seems true to them I suppose.
I listened to that show and actually partcipated in the youTube discussion to a certain extent, even though I usually don't.
it's clear to me that this is a cause-and-effect universe.
You are the one who is claiming free will exists, yet you demonstrate no physical evidence of this. What you do is work backwards saying there must be choice because I choose so therefore there is free will. What kind of an argument is that???
Where is the physical evidence? It is encumbent on those making the claim that something exists to prove such a thing exists. Why does the cause-and-effect universe not apply when it comes to our brains? Do we have a magical soul?
EDIT: oh and btw, if you could tell me what my problem is for believeing in determinism it would be appreciated.
-
I know this is a forbidden topic on here, but I'm going to say what I have to say and if I get shut down, so be it.
I support Stefan's work. I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on. Except determinism.
Now imo, Stef has based his entire philosophy (or at least thinks he has) on the idea that Free Will is true. ie. if everything is determined then what are choices? And how can there be a right or wrong?
I ultimately go with evidence. All evidence points to the world being deterministic. Apparently if I think this I have some kind of mental problem, or childhood problem according to Stef? Could he or someone please elaborate on this? I will say that I have been psychologically abused and bullied by my mother my entire life so I'm obviously a damaged person. But if I pretty much agree with Stef on everything else, I'm not sure how it is affecting me negatively when I only really disagree with him on determinism. Almost seems to be an ad hominem. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing...
I think if Stef can't incorporate determinism into his philosophy then ultimately someone else will come along who can. Shouting people down works for awhile, but it will fail in the end.
What does determinism mean for libertarianism/anarchism? I really don't know. I don't have the intellectual capability to figure it out. But I can't pretend that the magical free will exists either. I wish I could figure it out. I feel like there must be a way to fit it but I'm stumped atm. I know it can't just mean saying obviously any bad thing was going to happen and we should just accept bad things as well as good things. That's obviously not true. That just gives an excuse for bad people to do whatever they want. But beyond that, I'm stumped.
And I wonder if Stef is as stumped but doesn't want to admit it. Only thing is man, you'll get caught out by the truth in the end. Best to face it head on.
-
How do Australia and Canada compare?
I live in Australia and I've understood this and more for awhile now, but most people, like in any country I guess, seem to have a rose-tinted glass view of "their" country.
Canada and Australia seem to be similar in many ways, commodity currencies, similar population size, English speaking etc, big and mostly empty, basically one is hot and one is cold.
Sometimes I wonder if Stef has rose-tinted glasses about Canada or whether it isn't really that bad there...
The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch
in General Messages
Posted
I bought the beginning of infinity a while ago but for whatever reason didn't end up reading it. What is the basic premise? Can you summarise it in a paragraph or so?