Search the Community

http://conspirituality.org/peter-joseph/ I hope I've posted this on the right board. Thanks Charlotte Ward

TZM is offering a 1000 word or less essay challenge of a Resource Based Economy. The authors will be invited onto their radio talk show for discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gagFoqkepRs

While I was showering tonight I was thinking about what Peter Joseph was saying about Stephan's agrument being trancated and simplistic. Has anyone tried to put this in the analogy of a mathmatical problem. My thoughts went something like this: Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors." I think alot of people view society as a complex equation and think that the solution has to be complex as well. Just as in mathmatics I think the most basic principles hold true even in the most complex situations, or at least they should.

Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnuRRWZxSE Warning: fanaticism included Hey guys, this is my first topic. I really didn't want it to be about this but I think people should see. (So the more important topics come later ) Peter Joseph has let his Ego show in a pretty horrendous response to Stefan's review of the debate. This looks to be the start of a nice big flame war and the comment section is hot with abuse. Just a warning for people it contains obscene language if that's the kind of thing you like the avoid. You will get a clear picture of how the video continues purely from the first 120 seconds. I just want to know what did you think of: - The "debate" - Stephan's review - Peter Joseph's responses - Should Stefan reply to this, if so why/Why not? Or is it just the start of a useless flame war? Personally I don't like to see anybody going at it over anything, so I will not pressure anyone especially Stefan to reply to something like this. I don't think there's much to gain from it, as you pretty much can't use reason and logic with this type of emotional flaming. Take care all I hope to have some productive discussions soon. Cheers. PS. If this topic isn't permitted due to the whole flame war thing, I will gladly delete it.

I took my liberty to point out what ideas do I get during my plentiful listenings to Stefan's radio show. I think Stefan's great with psychological and philosophical themes, but when it comes to the economic system itself, I can see there's a work for me. I can't improve what is perfect, but I can show a mirror to what I think is flawed - but fun! I did my best to keep the comic strips tasteful and intelligent and maybe even funny. However, be sure I'll post them on many occasions when I need to illustrate a point, literally. I'll add more when I get any other ideas. 10 in the first day is good enough. Please mods, if you like the topic, make it sticky To all the offended parties I profusely apologize.

TZM tzm tzm. you say we should get rid of money.let's say we achieve an RBE (resource based economy).are people free to do what they want? what if they create a cryptocurrency like bitcoin? supercomputers is not a magical answer to infinite everything. scarcity will still exist, whether it be in the form of gold, bottlenecks on production capabilities, inflexibility of capital goods, or limited living space in 3d.When the supercomputer cannot create the things people want in time, people will want to exchange among themselves. But how do you trade a car for some bread? how much is worth what? And lots of goods don't last very long, how will save up to trade those? They also need to barter, because there is no medium of exchange.People will naturally start instituting money in one form or another - (again, stop with the delusion that suptercomputers will put an end to scarcity. if it's not infinite, it's scarce. It just means the world will be able to support a lot more people, but once that limit is reached, scarcity will apply once again).So once a currency is instituted, there will be so many advantages to it, that it will stick around. TZM ppl like Peter Joseph say states are a natural result of freedom of action and wanting better for yourself in competition with others. Well, that's questionable. What's more solid is that media of exchange will arise naturally in an RBE.Now My big question is this: Will the people in charge of the central RBE system forcibly outlaw and ban money, in order to maintain the RBE? Or will people be free to do what they want, and use whatever media of exchange they want (or not) under an RBE? Will they be "cut off" from receiving resources from the RBE supercomputer, or in reduced amounts (I know you will say "no", but scarcity will hit, so that is not a legitimate answer). Will you support the RBE system to the point of disallowing the monetary system that was so reviled by TZM-ers? Will you engage in force to stop monetary systems from coming back alive? Will money be the new 'sin" of the new "state"?And while we're at it, when scarcity hits, and everything is free, how do "runs" or flocking to deplete the resource about to become in shortage get prevented? In a market system, prices go up, and you have a nautrally self-regulating feedback mechanism, which also sends signals to tell people to produce more of it and increase the supply. if you can push a button and just get it, you've essentially engaged in price-fixing, so you will get the same results as rent-control: no additional housing development, and massive shortage of housing (or the particular good). *edit: tries really hard not to calling TZM-ers economic illiterates, and instead posts this instead.My real question and purpose of this thread is to inquire about the policy and use of force of the RBE / TZM utopia, knowing that the time would come when they'd have to face that decision. You do have to face that decision because scarcity is not gone with a supercomputer whose magical algorithm is not even being developed by TZM as far as i know.Also, is there only one super computer that handles all the variables of everyone's supplies and demands and preferences and tastes? or can there be multiple? If multiple, who decides which computer governs which area or number of people? If so, is there a central management group that does this? What if everyone wnats to work for that? Who says they can or can't? Can there be overlapping of geographic or person coverage by different supercomputers? Why is it so deplorable to rely on supply and demand, property rights, voluntary trade, and the price mehcanism, which accomplishes things that no central supercomputer can't? the supercomputer would have to tap into everyone's brains (or just get super super scarily accurate in predicting what people want) to be anywhere near accurate. privacy issues. do we even want such a computer? Isn't that much power just a giant barrel of gunpowder waiting to be lit up by a violent sociopath that works for the world's suptercomputer department? It hardly seems stable from a game theory point of view.I used to be pretty ignorant, but critical of anarchy before i heard how it would work and all of the game theory objections were addressed by podcasts 1,2,64,131,and 203. So it's possible I'm being like that again about RBE. But i've yet to hear any real address to these issues. Why not have a king of the hill approach to truth? Science seems to do that just fine. But seriously, if we're going to talk, you have to accept that scarcity is not rid of by a supercomputer (again, which you aren't building). You have to learn basic economic principles. edit: excuse the grammar and the spelling. I just don't really care that much. Infer or impose whatever irrational, or statistically true judgement you want. I'm more concerned about the substance of the discussion, and if you're not, then do what you want. If I'm making money with this, or doing it for some professional thing, I'd consider it, but I just don't care. Just like I don't wear suits in my own home or when I visit my neighbor's house.

Who is Nikola Danaylov? From the about on his website: Philosopher, infopreneur, blogger and popular podcast host, Nikola Danaylov was born in Bulgaria. ... ... For the past 4 years Nikola has published and edited over 600 articles and conducted more than 120 interviews with the world’s best known experts. He has spoken at public events on topics ranging from technology, transhumanism and the technological singularity to new media, blogging and podcasting. Nikola has also been interviewed himself for numerous documentary films, blogs, podcasts, magazines and newspapers. His own Singularity 1 on 1 interviews have been featured on international TV networks as well as some of the biggest blogs in the world such as io9 and BoingBoing. Today Singularity Weblog is the biggest independent blog on related topics. The unique Singularity 1 on 1 podcast is the most popular and widely recognized interview series in the niche and, according to Prof. Roman Yampolski He has interviewed many notable people such as Ray Kurzweil, Noam Chomsky, Aubrey de Grey, and many others. interviewed Peter Joseph in July of this year. Some of it clarifies that the Zeitgeist movement is a collectivist system. The youtube video of the interview is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcyDxNic1ao

One of the fundamental mistakes Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement makes is one most of us free market anarco-capitalists have made in the past as we tried to navigate the Orwellian statist world that misleads those seeking truth. This is not to discount all of what Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement advocate. I'm watching but haven't seen the whole debate yet. The mistake is the following. He takes as the foundation and definition of ideas and terms about the world the Orwellian double-think that has been perpetuated by the state for decades. In other words he accepts concepts of capitalism, free market, society... that have been distorted by the state as real representations of those terms. Then he tries to "fix" that statist "system" by instituting a new system. Mr. Joseph and the Zeitgeist movement I submit to you that your premise is incorrect. Check your premises.