Peter J vs Stefan M - frustrating...

[powder]

I was looking forward to the debate as they are both intelligent and articulate thinkers, I came away frustrated.  

 

PJ was unnecessarily verbose and obtuse, as well as condescending and insulting, that behavior I expected.  Stefan frustrated PJ, and me, by not addressing the main theme of Peter's position and instead spent his time challenging assumptions and definitions, which is important, but they never got to the meat of the debate imo.  

 

Peter's idea to make the world better:  scarcity creates competition (bad) because of human's drive to survive - a psychological position.  

 

Stefan's idea:  Non Aggression Principle - volunteer and cooperative interaction instead of coercion - an ethical position.  

 

 

I need to hear round two where Stefan gets to work on the central issue of the zeitgiest proposal.  Or maybe you folks who are more familiar with these issues can pick it up...

[STer]

I was looking forward to the debate as they are both intelligent and articulate thinkers, I came away frustrated.  

 

PJ was unnecessarily verbose and obtuse, as well as condescending and insulting, that behavior I expected.  Stefan frustrated PJ, and me, by not addressing the main theme of Peter's position and instead spent his time challenging assumptions and definitions, which is important, but they never got to the meat of the debate imo.  

 

Peter's idea to make the world better:  scarcity creates competition (bad) because of human's drive to survive - a psychological position.  

 

Stefan's idea:  Non Aggression Principle - volunteer and cooperative interaction instead of coercion - an ethical position.  

 

 

I need to hear round two where Stefan gets to work on the central issue of the zeitgiest proposal.  Or maybe you folks who are more familiar with these issues can pick it up...

I completely agree.

 

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say in the combination of both parts of my post here and perhaps also some useful info toward this end here.

[powder]

thanks, STer, I will read those threads.  

 

just noticed a youtube video of Stefan's response to the debate.  I am looking forward to hearing it.  I imagine it will have much of the stuff I was hoping he would bring up in the debate.  we'll see...

[STer]

Welcome. I actually linked directly to my specific posts in those threads.

 

Can you post the link to the YouTube video you mention?

[jimmo100]

Wow! Now that is an excellent 80 minute analysis.

 

 

Personally, I would refrain from one particular, not-insignificant limitation which is present in Stef's general narrative - in all of his presentations - and that is to say for sure how far back one's traumatic experience goes. For sure most recent childhood is at least part of one's past and there is most definitely a lot of damage that has and does happen in childhood. I'm just saying I don't have enough to draw the line there.

 

I actually think this is really what all hard-line Socialists fear the most.... the proposition that anything in history is potentially, somehow personally verifiable. This speaks to the true potential of each of us. And any attention by the average person to raising the spiritual awareness of individuals drives authoritarians absolutely nuts.In my opinion, this is exactly where a free market - the absence of or at least a sustained pegging back of the scope of the State - would lead. People have talked about personal responsibility as being the bottom line in their analysis of this latest debate. I agree entirely. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Once again, Stefan hits the target like a sniper!

 

"World of a child." What a perfect analogy for most any utopian fantasy.

 

Corroboration on Peter Joseph's "hidden" trauma can be heard from the man himself: "I hate money!" http://podcasts.joer...ph-brian-redban (26:16).

[shirgall]

Round two would probably need to start, again, with common definitions and first principles.

[powder]

only had time to hear the first 15 min, so far so good.  I'll be back...  

[Mike Fleming]

There won't be a second debate.  Or at least I think it is highly unlikely.

 

Stef went into it with an open mind, ready to debate the points, even deep down I'm sure he suspected it was going to go the way it did.  And that's exactly how it did go.  There's really nothing more to be said.  PJ has been discredited.  That's it.  End of story.

 

There is no great debate to be had between these two minds.  The reality is there is only one great mind.  And he did an excellent post-debate analysis.

[RealP]

I'm still debating myself whether the debate was positive or negative. Negative in the sense that we didn't get to watch serious opposition to Stef's arguments, which may constitute a waste of time for the listener; or positive because we confirm one more time that there is no serious opposition, and that means that we are on the "right track". Does that make sense?

[Kevin Beal]

I'm still debating myself whether the debate was positive or negative. Negative in the sense that we didn't get to watch serious opposition to Stef's arguments, which may constitute a waste of time for the listener; or positive because we confirm one more time that there is no serious opposition, and that means that we are on the "right track". Does that make sense?

What I would hope from a debate like this is taking these ideas into the real world and applying them consistently, seeing how it goes.

 

Peter is no dummy. The fact that he had such a difficult time addressing anything directly and instead had to rely on adjectives to "make his point", is (in part) a testament to the power of these ideas.

 

It's not like Peter is going to say "you know what, you are totally right, this Zeitgeist movement thing will never work". If he can't rebut the arguments, then he can't rebut the arguments.

 

What more could you hope for? (Other than for him to be less of a jerk in debate)

[Mick Bynes]

I found Stefan to be more logical, rational, sensible and reasonable.  I like how he kept his cool.

 

Peter J was on a tangent with words and there were words he said and I did not understand those words.  Who is he trying to impress?  He certainly does not impress me at all.

[Magenta]

I just finished listening to the debate, got excited, and whipped up a personal response. I want to share it before I listen to the post-debate analysis podcast, to see if my thoughts change then.

 

I think the Peter Joseph vs. Stefan Molyneux debate can be summarized into one unresolved disagreement, mostly due to misunderstanding of each other’s positions:

 

What is the logical conclusion of the administration of property rights?

 

Peter's Perspective: If you introduce property rights, the logical conclusion is that it is more economically efficient to abandon NAP and take up the initiation of violence in order to increase one’s wealth at the expense of others. Incentives do not align with principles and therefore principles are abandoned.

 

Stef's Perspective: I agree that violence is more economically efficient than NAP, but violence is only tolerated (the incentives only exist) if you join property rights with the idea of positive obligations. If positive obligations and property rights coexist, then violence is the logical conclusion. But if you introduce property rights without positive obligations, then NAP is both the principled logical conclusion and the economically incentivized conclusion. What Peter fails to see is that the current state of the west exists only because positive obligations are believed. Remove those, and the logical conclusions of property rights change to follow the NAP and all of our agreed problems of today’s world then are resolved.

 

===========================================================================================

===========================================================================================

 

Here is a long form of my above interpretations, in case the above short form was not a sufficient explanation:

 

Allow me to attempt to explain Peter’s position better than Peter did. Definitions that I think Peter and Stef would have agreed on:

 

Start by defining “capitalist market” as different from the “free market” in the following way:

Free market = respect for property rights, which logically results in the non-aggression principle, division of labor, and trade.

Capitalist market = the ecosystem that proposes property rights in the sense of resource ownership, division of labor, and trade, but whose actors do not morally adhere to the non-aggression principle because of economic efficiency.

Companies = businesses without governmental protection.

Corporations = businesses with governmental protection

Governmental force is an initiation of violence and thus the terms can be used interchangeably.

 

From Peter’s perspective: a capitalist market cannot exist in a state of non-violence (a.k.a. the “free market”) because the free market is only a theory and cannot exist in reality. Once property rights are established, NAP is a logical conclusion, but there are opposing incentives – NAP is not economically efficient, and therefore in practice, the NAP is not reached as a conclusion of property rights. People, in a system of property rights, respond to incentives and utilize economic efficiency in order to increase their wealth - violence is an extremely efficient way to increase wealth. For example, government is very economically efficient for its members. Therefore, corporations utilize governmental force in order to increase their wealth. And in the absence of governmental force, they would still clamor to use force to increase their wealth. Stef would say that without a government, it would be economically inefficient to use force and Peter might agree, but Peter would argue that companies have the fundamental incentive to use force to increase their wealth, and therefore they create a government so that they can become corporations and use force to increase their wealth.

 

Evidence from Peter’s perspective: The current system in the west proposes property rights. NAP is the logical conclusion of property rights, but it is rejected, so my logical deduction is that the economic incentives of a system of property rights do not align with the NAP – violence is more economically efficient.

 

Stef proposes that violence is only acceptable in the west because people are convinced of positive obligations. If they were not convinced of positive obligations, they would accept NAP as the logical conclusion. Peter thinks that people already accept the arguments of property rights and they clearly haven’t accepted NAP as the conclusion. Stef proposes that what is currently being sold to people by those in power is merely a veil of property rights, with a bag of positive obligations under the veil. Without the positive obligations, the violence would be unacceptable.

 

I offer an additional perspective on Stef’s rebuttal to how a capitalist market makes decisions. I craft this perspective with the aim of it being easier to digest for someone with Peter’s perspective. Even if we ignore the NAP aspect of a free market and work purely within a capitalist market, the capitalist market makes decisions based on one simple principle: to please their customers. No drive for violence exists inherently. Here’s where the violence comes in: if customers become convinced of positive obligations, then their conclusion will be that the initiation of violence is a good way to settle decisions. Then, the result of the capitalist market seeking to please customers will be the capitalist market utilizing the initiation of violence to settle decisions.

 

Stef’s argument: Government comes to exist due to the will of the people. If they are convinced of positive obligations, then they can be convinced that self-defense is not the only justification for violence and that mere inaction can be evil and therefore it is virtuous to use force against those not fulfilling positive obligations. If people did not believe in the illusion of positive obligations, government would not exist, as it is merely a symptom of that illusion. Government is a moral institution that can only claim justification for the initiation of violence if positive obligations exist. Evil people who want to initiate violence could never start a government because government is the lie that violence is virtuous and property rights alone opposes that idea. Without the support of virtue, violence would never be allowed, because people have a fundamental desire to be virtuous – where we deviate from peace is where we are convinced that violence is virtuous.

[Mike Larson]

Magenta, I think you have made some really great points here. Violence is only economically efficient when positive obligations are accepted. To put it another way... violence is only economically efficient in the absence of philosophy. This is the truth that, as you suggest, would quickly dismantle Peter Joseph's primary argument that leads him to reject a free society.

 

Peter kept on suggesting that the free-market will inevitably lead to some sort of violent domination by a small group of people over others (the state).  To us, that sounds like saying non-violence inevitably leads to violence, which is kind of bizarre thing to say. And I think Stefan focussed on this incoherent proposition in his counter-arguments.

 

But this is what I think Peter was really saying...

 

"Human beings (in their current and historical psychological condition), believing that things are scarce (and wanting to survive), are willing to initiate or accept violence as a means to get what they want or need."

 

This is the statement that I think both Peter and Stefan could agree upon.

 

Peter's solution: Human beings don't need to believe in this "scarcity" thing anymore. We now live in a world of abundance. Why adhere to such irrelevant and antiquated ways of looking at the world. Remove the belief in scarcity, and you automatically remove violence.

 

Stefan's solution: Scarcity is a fundamental reality of the world we live in. Failing to acknowledge it will not make it go away. The only way to deal with the problem of violence is to promote philosophy and virtue (beginning with ourselves and in our own families).

 

Perhaps a future debate might focus on the concept of scarcity and the idea that the rejection of philosophy is necessary in order for violence to be an economical approach for survival.

[Guest darkskyabove]

@Magenta: I would submit that the misunderstanding is more fundamental. (I think you did a good job of restating PJ's position.)

 

Do property rights exist?

 

I would say they do not. Eminent domain: recently ruled to also allow taking someone's property to be sold to another due to better economic prospects (if you own some economically idle property and refuse to sell it to Wal-Mart, you can be forced by a court decision). Excessive taxation, and the various ways the government (IRS) can seize or put a lien on your property. Excessive regulation; too many to list, but, essentially, you are not free to use your property as you see fit (restrictions, licenses, patents, etc.) Excessive regulatory abuse; too many to list, but a recent case is of note, where the Army had blocked a stream, thereby flooding this man's land, resulting in the land being declared a "protected" wetland, ending in the owner being forced to abandon the property. Militarization of police forces (wave farewell to the Fourth Amendment, designed to protect your property from "unreasonable searches and seizure"). Inflation of the fiat money supply; besides its other problems, this results in the value of your property being at the whim of the government and its cronies.

 

I could probably go on far too long, but I think my point is made.

 

If property rights do not actually exist, wouldn't this put Mr. Joseph's position on shaky ground? If he's claiming that property rights lead to the use of violence to expand wealth (a debatable, I would say dubious, claim), and property rights are a fiction to disguise state power, then this part of his argument fails.

[Mike Fleming]

I don't think Stef thinks that violence is more economically efficient overall.  His argument is that is better for a small group of people.  And for that group of people to benefit they must propagandise the rest of society.   Therefore, overall, it results in less economic efficiency and less overall well-being.

 

Much in the way that slavery also had a similar effect and had to be abandoned.  That's why I think ultimately the current system of govt will eventually be abandoned for the free market.  It will because it is ultimately the only way to continue the path of continual progress.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

I'm still debating myself whether the debate was positive or negative. Negative in the sense that we didn't get to watch serious opposition to Stef's arguments, which may constitute a waste of time for the listener; or positive because we confirm one more time that there is no serious opposition, and that means that we are on the "right track". Does that make sense?

 

So you were looking for confirmation, how boring. I am not into confirmation bias and wanted to see someone disprove at least some of Stefans positions(arguments). That's what a serious opposition is all about, it has to be challenging.

[RealP]

So you were looking for confirmation, how boring. I am not into confirmation bias and wanted to see someone disprove at least some of Stefans positions(arguments). That's what a serious opposition is all about, it has to be challenging.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I meant to say that I hoped to see serious opposition and a good challenge to Stef's ideas, but in the absence of that, I guess that there's some comfort on knowing that the opposition is not very good, which could be further evidence of the validity of the ideas.Also, for some reason I felt annoyed with your comment about how boring you think that my objective is. It's certainly your experience of my post, which is totally fine and valid, but I just wanted to share this with you and get your thoughts.

[ILO]

I don't know what it is about Peter Joseph, but there's something about him that seems disingenuous, almost like there's an ego-maniac hiding underneath the surface.  Even the Venus Project founders want him, and his movement to stop using their materials.