Mark Carolus

This is correct, but how can we ensure that people stay "awake/aware"? Say we manage to change the world, we have an entire generation that understands what real freedom is ( to put it in simple terms ), how will we make sure that 3 generations later, we don't have the same problems again? It is during times of great economic prosperity, that people allow for government, or a form of government to grow. It is during times of great economic prosperity, that people are not focusing on things that might become problematic in the future. If people in the 60's and 70's ( the baby-boomers ) were aware of the consequences of their choices, their actions or in fact lack of actions, i don't think we'd have these problems today. Sure we might have other problems yes, but most likely not the problems we have now. Basically, people become philosophically lazy during times of economic prosperity and that gives room for corruption and exploitation. The problems we see today, are not the result of one big decision made by governments 6 years ago, they are the result of incremental changes made by governments, i don't think we can guarantee this won't happen again, merely by trying to educate people here and now. People depend on other people to feed cloth and house them, yes you can choose to live out in the forest and be completely independent, but that's not really an option for the majority of people right?

As long as we depend on other people to survive, other people will be able to exploit you. I am an avid believer in almost everything libertarians stand for, i think people like Stefan are great teachers who can help humanity. I would absolutely LOVE a world where people lived their lives according to the upb and nap, but even IF we can get to the point where we achieve critical mass and even IF we manage to change things for the better, what exactly is going to keep us from falling into these problems again? We have the constitution, but it doesn't mean anything at all, it is after all merely a piece of paper and pieces of paper CAN NOT guarantee your liberty. Are we going to write a new constitution on magical paper this time? or on DVD perhaps? maybe we can laser etch it on the moon like a tattoo or something? Seriously, NOTHING is going to guarantee us that it won't go wrong again, unless ( and please tell me if I'm wrong and if so, how I am wrong ) people stop depending on people. If you're gonna try and refute this argument, then please, at least try to tell me how people depending on other people, does not mean we can be exploited.

Why do you keep missing the point? I have the feeling that you do it on purpose. Why are you trying to explain to me, that there's a difference between force and coercion ( i do know the difference ), even though that does not in any way refute my argument? Why is women being forced and/or coerced ( whether it is forced or coerced does not matter at all ) to work, a valid argument for women being unhappy? Why is that very same argument not relevant to men? Please answer me that question. Question 2: Were men forced to work pre-feminism or were they coerced? If coerced, then why can Stefan all the sudden say that women are forced? If forced, then why is men having to work any less of a reason for them to be unhappy, then it is for a woman? If we had a system in which automated machines produce the basic human needs, then surely, work has become optional right? We have the technological capability to actually do that. Why not take that part of the RBE/Zeitgeist movement/Venus project and still keep a money based system, in which people are allowed to work, if they want to have more then just their needs met? I do not believe the resource based economy is a valid one to go for, but does that mean that every point made by its advocates is invallid? clearly it's not.

Before feminism, men were the sole breadwinners of the household, with women having the option to go to work. After feminism, things got so expensive that women now also have to work, in stead of having the option to work. This has made women more unhappy. Am I missing something here? or are you? How come "women being forced/coerced to work" can be given as a valid reason for women being more unhappy, given the fact that men were forced/coerced to do that for eon's? We are basically admitting that working is shit, are we not? Or are we admitting that being coerced or forced to work is shit? In both cases, my original post is still valid if (work == shit){ men.unhappy = true women.unhappy = true } else { men.unhappy = false women.unhappy = false } if (forcedTOwork == shit){ men.unhappy = true women.unhappy = true } else { men.unhappy = false women.unhappy = false } I feel we should make work an option for everyone, man and woman.

There are "good" and "bad" people in every group. The actions and words of the few, do not justify condemnation of the many. I'd say look at their ideas and see if you agree with those. If a group of libertarian people shot up a school, it does not mean all libertarians want to shoot up schools. If 19 middle-eastern guys hijack a few plains and fly them into large towers, it does not mean you should attack the entire middle-east. if............ah, you get the point

I am referring to 2 video's here, one is the one where Stefan goes up against Peter Joseph and the other is the one posted on November 29 2007 called: Why are women so unhappy? A modest theory... link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4WsRnxMZI8First of all, I completely agree with Stefan's modest theory, in fact, this is exactly what I believe and have always thought to be true, even before watching this video.When I was listening to the video with Stefan and Peter J, Stefan came up with the argument that, 95% of the world is uninhabited, so you could just go live in the woods grow your own food and therefore would not have to participate in this economy.In the "Why are women so unhappy" video, you clearly state that it is because now they are FORCED to work, in stead of being free to choose if they want to work or not.If I am not mistaken, you are admitting that having to work in order to even be able to have a life ( or at least one with all the modern conveniences ), is equal to force. EDIT: Women can also choose to live in the forest and grow their own food right?In this case you are only referring to women, since they in the past did not have to work ( where men never had that choice ), but is it somehow not force if it involves a man needing to work in order to be able to have a life? Please explain, Love, Mark

Ok, as Stefan and many others regularly say, human beings may not have infinite needs, but they do have infinite wants. While this is true, I feel this can not be a basis for society/the market, since infinite wants + 7 billion people = to much wants for to little resources. If wants are infinite, but resources for those wants are not, not all people will be able to get what they want. If county A, has 500 gold cars and 50000 inhabitants who all want a gold car, only the richest 500 can have a gold car, the others can not. Is this want morally justifiable? If you ask me, it isn't. What if I wanted to own the moon? would that be a morally justifiable want? What if I wanted to own Spain as a whole?

Hello FDR users and Stefan. First, i have to say that MAN Stefan, i LOVE your show. Many of the opinions you have on things like child raising and other things to do with human interaction, are opinions i share with you and opinions i've had even before i ever heard of you. Your shows help reinforce my thoughts on a meriad of things. Before i started listening to your shows, i felt like i was on my own and that my opinions and feelings were not of this world somehow. I have many things i would like to discuss on this forum, but i will start off with the Zeitgeist thing, seeing as it is a recently discussed subject and therefore fresh in the memory of your listeners/followers. There are a couple of facts, which i would like to present to the readers and writers of this forum, in hopes of starting a usefull discussion ( discussion for the purpose of coming to better understanding ). Fact 1: The production and distribution of various types of food, can be fully automated today. Cows are already getting milked by machines, fruit and vegetables can be grown in fully automated hydrophonic vertical farms. The only thing that is not yet automated, is meat production. At the same time, scientists have already created the first synthetic meat, which tastes like and has the same structure as normal meat, while providing the same nutriants or can in fact be made to have more nutriants. It is also more than likely, that in the very near future, we can just 3D-print meat products in our own kitchen ( this has been done and merely needs to be further refined to be viable ) Conclusion: With current or near future technology, nobody would need to work in the food industry anymore. Fact 2: Carbon NanoTubes have been available on the open market for some years now and research on them, has concluded that basically..... they can replace pretty much anything from metal to plastic and from semi-conductor to complete computer. It is stronger, lighter and if needed more conductive than any metal. It can be made to be more heat resistant than any other alloy or substance in use today. You can build up an entire car out of carbon NanoTubes, from wheels to engine and from seats to body parts. You can build micro-chips and bread-boards out of them. I can not come up with something it can not make and i have done quite some searching. This fact, coupled with ( again ) 3D printing, will mean that, if unrestricted by market incentive, people can make anything they want when they want it where they want it, including your Ipad or lawn-mower ( so no need to trade with your neighbor ) Conclusion: With current and near future technology, there is no longer a need for people to extract resources from the ground, mines will all be closed and the only thing we need to harvest, is pure carbon, which..... can be automated. Fact 3: The first 3D printed house, complete with everything a house needs, has already been realized. Conclusion: with current technology, there is no need for people to work in construction anymore. Now, seeing that with current or near future technology, nobody needs to work in mining anymore and nobody needs to work in food production anymore and nobody needs to work in construction anymore, while at the same time seeing that we can create basically anything from the comform of our living-room, what reason would there be, to have money at all? I think that there would only be work for designers , engineers, developers, programmers and techinicians, of which you will NEVER need more than 6-10% of the entire population, in order to function. This means that, for at least 90% of the worlds population, there would be no need to work ( not need to in the sense that, society is dependant on it to function ). If there's no real need for 90% of the population to work, what reason is there, to stick to using money? I hope i have inspired people to think about this, please refute anything i wrote if you can. Cheers, Mark