Zeitgeist Essay Challenge - 1000 words or less

[Vuk11]

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

[dsayers]

Why are they seeking new arguments? They haven't addressed the existing ones.

 

Cheap shot warning...

 

Anybody notice the first three letters in the unique part of the URL spells "gag"? Two times!

[Vuk11]

Actually yeah when I posted that I was like "gagfog"? Was strange to notice.This is I guess a formal challenge, my only fear is that people with genuinely good arguments will refuse now that there is a formal challenge, people with weak arguments will go ahead, go on the radio show and just make total fools of themselves. Either way I'll be interested too see the arguments laid out. 

[Mike Fleming]

I wouldn't even bother.  If I was going to write a criticism of Zeitgeist, which I am considering, I would just publish it on my own on my own terms with no restrictions.   There is plenty of criticism of them floating around now, this is a way of them trying to control it imo.   The fact they are doing something like this might be an indication that they have peaked and are in decline and are trying to slow the bleeding.

[Wuzzums]

"(...) like any scientific position"

Yeah, nice framing.

[RyanT]

Yep, seen as Peter Joseph simply dismissed Stefan's arguments as 'bullshit' and 'nonsense',

it's not too hard to see how this'll play out...

 

Certainly, my money's on the 'winner' being some pretentious little socialist, who like TZM,

attempts to communicate his ideas almost exclusively by spitting out, 'big made up words', 

 

which of course to some will seem like an high brow intellectual debate,

but to the rest of us will be like watching 2 nerds talk about dating girls, 

....in klingon.      

[AustinJames]

I think I might give it a shot, if only for the sake of performing some mental aerobics. In reading TZM's broad thesis in the essay guidelines, the first thought I had was:

 

 

The assertion that “scarcity now has no ecological/technical basis with respect to meeting all our basic human needs” is not only unproven, but is rather irrelevant to the actual demand for resources.  Even if we are to accept that there are enough resources to allow the healthy subsistence of every individual on the planet (though ‘healthy subsistence’ in this instance is abstract, due to the complex and disparate nature of predisposition to ailments), this conclusion ignores the fact that human desire for resources expands beyond what is needed to subsist.  Once resources enough to survive are secured, a person will immediately seek out methods of improving their quality of life.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[labmath2]

I did not bother to read the guideline, but i am familiar with TMZ and support them in principle, anyone can post my criticism since i am too lazy to do it myself.

 

The success of TMZ is that they realize a problem that i think most intellectuals that have ever sided against an-cap and libertarian ethics realized, people never interact from a position of equality. All interaction begin with parent child, then to the child interacting a bunch of others who he must look up to until one day he/she becomes the one others look up to. This top down interaction always creates potential for exploitation, but i think TMZ like many others, focus on the problem by addressing the effect and not so much the cause. The probelms boils down to incentives. Zeitgeist like many other socialist movements are under the impression there is some "fair" way to share resources. Even if that were true, which i would contend is not, who produces these goods? Would we not then create the same problem on a much bigger scale where the most productive would be exploited by the least productive? Would it not be much easier to tackle the problem starting from promoting parents negotiating with their children, who will then go on to negotiate better when they get into society leading to less, possibly eradicate, exploitation? If the problem is our effect on the environment, the same improvement in negotiation would help resolve the problem much easier without forcing people at gun point.

[dsayers]

i am familiar with TMZ and support them in principle

 

What principle? I haven't heard anything related to them that could be considered universal.

[AustinJames]

Labmath, I agree with what you say is missing with TZM's approach (peaceful parenting is the basis of a peaceful society).  I think you're also right in saying it boils down to incentives, and that TZM's approach is missing this crucial element of human action; I'm leaning toward making that the crux of my argument. I'm with dsayers in not understanding what principle you support.

[labmath2]

What principle? I haven't heard anything related to them that could be considered universal.

 

I watched all three TMZ movies and the culture in decline series, and i think some of  Peter Joseph's argument about the systems we created are valid. Take something like banking, sure they help people by loaning money out, but the essence of the service is to take money from one group loan it to another group, and make money without adding any value to society. Apply such a system to something like bitcoin where the currency is finite and you see how it becomes problematic since it must lead to a bubble. This is the essence of what happened during the housing bubble where people believed there was a lot more money in circulation than there actually was since most of that money was debt that would never be paid back. Or companies that operate on the premise of maximizing profit even if they have to harm others to do it. Think of fracking, where toxins sometimes gets into the surrounding areas forcing people to leave their houses. Sure we can argue these things will be dealt with in a free society, but most of the time people do not know till it becomes a widespread problem. Take something like global warming, though i have doubts about the conclusion, if it turns out to be true, are the biggest offenders going to be held responsible for fixing it? The idea that we can individually make decisions that aggregates to negative outcomes for us as a species is always there and the idea that we should ignore it because people will always find a solution to it is disconcerting. While i am not a big fan of forcing my opinion on others, i think if we wait till something akin to global warming actually starts to threaten us as a group to work together on the bigger problems, we may not last as a species.

[dsayers]

Take something like banking, sure they help people by loaning money out, but the essence of the service is to take money from one group loan it to another group, and make money without adding any value to society.

 

First of all, you're talking about coercive banking. Namely banking predicated on State controlled currency. This isn't eligible for the description of a system that "we created." Secondly, coercion aside, loaning money out for startup capital is crucial to innovation. How this could be described as not adding any value to society is incomprehensible. Third, if somebody doesn't add value to a free society (key), then people will not return value and that business will go under. Meaning that in a free society, businesses that didn't go under would be providing value to somebody.

 

But this isn't a principle. I asked about the principle you agreed with as nothing I've heard from them is universal. Could you answer that please? I'd be happy to listen to anything else you might want to add, but my initial query pertained to principle.

 

I only skimmed over the rest of your post. I see a lot of reference of coercion, which also fails to meet your original claim of systems "we created."

[labmath2]

First of all, you're talking about coercive banking. Namely banking predicated on State controlled currency. This isn't eligible for the description of a system that "we created." Secondly, coercion aside, loaning money out for startup capital is crucial to innovation. How this could be described as not adding any value to society is incomprehensible. Third, if somebody doesn't add value to a free society (key), then people will not return value and that business will go under. Meaning that in a free society, businesses that didn't go under would be providing value to somebody.

 

But this isn't a principle. I asked about the principle you agreed with as nothing I've heard from them is universal. Could you answer that please? I'd be happy to listen to anything else you might want to add, but my initial query pertained to principle.

 

I only skimmed over the rest of your post. I see a lot of reference of coercion, which also fails to meet your original claim of systems "we created."

 

Simplified, don't destroy your environment to make a profit and don't screw over your fellow men to make a profit. I would be hesitant to assume everything that operates under a government is coercive. Everything, by that argument, becomes coercive since government is involved in almost all aspect of society, even the internet. I can argue that you are still benefiting from the coercion of the state as long as you live under some coercive government, so go live in some obscure native American reservation or African village, but that would not be a productive argument. 

[dsayers]

don't destroy your environment to make a profit

 

What does "destroy your environment" mean? Having a computer program dictate how resources (environment) gets used isn't not destroying your environment. The home you live in, the environment there had to be "destroyed" so that humans could have shelter. So not only is this not a principle, but it would be one everybody happily crosses to some degree for the sake of survival.

 

don't screw over your fellow men to make a profit

 

What does "screw over your fellow men" mean? If you're talking theft, assault, rape, or murder, we don't need a computer program to tell us that these things are immoral. This too is not a principle. Let's say I chop down a tree. That's a tree you don't get to use. Did I screw you over? Then let's say I fashion it into a chair and sell it to somebody. That somebody isn't going to buy that chair from you now because they bought it from me. Did I screw you over? Did they?

 

I would be hesitant to assume everything that operates under a government is coercive.

 

Government claims to own you and everything within its borders and makes decisions about your body, time, effort, etc without your consent. If you can make the case as to how this could be not described as coercive, please make that case. Your hesitancy to accept my claim doesn't alter its truth value.

 

I can argue that you are still benefiting from the coercion of the state as long as you live under some coercive government, so go live in some obscure native American reservation or African village, but that would not be a productive argument. 

 

You're right, though it might manage the anxiety you feel in having conclusions you cannot provide methodology for challenged. You spoke of coercive things as if the coercion isn't there. This is a flawed premise, so any conclusion built on that premise will also be flawed. I think that given the nature of what we're talking about, it's kind of important to be accurate. Otherwise, you're just ushering in the next flavor of human enslavement. I'm assuming that's not your intention.

[labmath2]

What does "destroy your environment" mean? Having a computer program dictate how resources (environment) gets used isn't not destroying your environment. The home you live in, the environment there had to be "destroyed" so that humans could have shelter. So not only is this not a principle, but it would be one everybody happily crosses to some degree for the sake of survival.

 

Destruction of the environment is one of those things that you can usually tell when you see it, but is hard to describe. An example would be when BP dumped gallons of coexit, a toxic chemical, to dissolve the oil and have it sink to the bottom of the water. Cutting down of a few trees is not the intention, but something like destruction of ecosystems.

 

What does "screw over your fellow men" mean? If you're talking theft, assault, rape, or murder, we don't need a computer program to tell us that these things are immoral. This too is not a principle. Let's say I chop down a tree. That's a tree you don't get to use. Did I screw you over? Then let's say I fashion it into a chair and sell it to somebody. That somebody isn't going to buy that chair from you now because they bought it from me. Did I screw you over? Did they?

 

 

Again it may not be specific, but i do not think anyone would consider cutting down a  tree and selling it to someone screwing them over. Take something like coca cola selling drinks with high fructose corn syrup that is really poisonous to humans despite knowing the harm and denying the allegations. Or the Tobacco company and cancer.

 

 

You're right, though it might manage the anxiety you feel in having conclusions you cannot provide methodology for challenged. You spoke of coercive things as if the coercion isn't there. This is a flawed premise, so any conclusion built on that premise will also be flawed. I think that given the nature of what we're talking about, it's kind of important to be accurate. Otherwise, you're just ushering in the next flavor of human enslavement. I'm assuming that's not your intention.

 

Here it just seems like an attempt to attack me personally, but i am not even sure what the point is.

 

Many people have argued that if you truly believe in the libertarian society, then start it, there is no better way to lead than by example. You can complain all you want, but your actions seem to show that you prefer to be in a statist society than not, since you haven't actually left. It is the same thing with people who complain about Wal-Mart but still shop or work there, it is hypocritical. If you say you cannot go start your own community because you will be threatened by the state, then show us how you will handle such a situation without having to resort to violence, or how you would defend yourself against threats. 

 

However, i would not make those arguments since i understand things are not that black and white and respect someone disagreeing with me even if think they are wrong.

[dsayers]

Destruction of the environment is one of those things that you can usually tell when you see it, but is hard to describe.

 

You said that you agree with them in principle. When I asked for a principle, you talked around the question. When you provided what you thought was a principle, it was challenged, to which you are responding it is hard to describe. Is it unreasonable to connect the dots and sum it up as you don't know what it is you support?

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. I think this (commonly referred to as the non-aggression principle) is simple, easy to describe, is universal, and therefore a principle. Now that I'm taking the time to demonstrate this, it occurs to me that supporting a principle is equally vague.

 

Take something like coca cola selling drinks with high fructose corn syrup that is really poisonous to humans despite knowing the harm and denying the allegations. Or the Tobacco company and cancer.

 

To me, screwing somebody over would be forcing them to not ingest something just because it's bad for them. Selling somebody something that they want to buy isn't screwing them over. If you really needed to paint a bad guy in that scenario, it would be that the person is screwing themselves over, as is their prerogative.

 

Here it just seems like an attempt to attack me personally, but i am not even sure what the point is.

 

You don't have to refine the words you think with if you don't want to. However, you don't get to put somebody asking you to explain yourself into a unfavorable light.

 

You can complain all you want, but your actions seem to show that you prefer to be in a statist society than not, since you haven't actually left.

 

You can complain all you want, but your actions seem to show that you prefer to be punched in the face than not, since you didn't dodge it.

 

I think I'm done here. I suspected there wasn't any merit to what you had said, feel that I've given you the opportunity to show otherwise, and now understand that your methodology is flawed and you have no interest in refining it. That's not a philosophical approach, which is what I'm interested in.

[AustinJames]

I can argue that you are still benefiting from the coercion of the state as long as you live under some coercive government, so go live in some obscure native American reservation or African village, but that would not be a productive argument. 

 

Native American Reservations and African villages are not removed from government coercion.  On the contrary, the festering stagnation in such areas is a direct result of state violence.  Moreover, the fact that we may be benefitting from coercion is irrelevant to whether we are victims of coercion.  A mafia may do well in the role of protecting a local business from some crime, but this doesn't mean the business owner should prefer to pay the mafia.  

 

 

 

Many people have argued that if you truly believe in the libertarian society, then start it, there is no better way to lead than by example. You can complain all you want, but your actions seem to show that you prefer to be in a statist society than not, since you haven't actually left. It is the same thing with people who complain about Wal-Mart but still shop or work there, it is hypocritical. If you say you cannot go start your own community because you will be threatened by the state, then show us how you will handle such a situation without having to resort to violence, or how you would defend yourself against threats. 

 

How can I find a place to start a libertarian community outside of state control?  Every desirable tract of land is currently under the control of some state.  I would have to ask permission to leave my current state, and if I renounce my citizenship, I will be far from free, but rather ostracized, unless I took up citizenship in some other state.  Free societies in the past (and in the present, i.e. Somalia) have either been economically ostracized or violently pillaged.  The problem is not that I would be "threatened by the state" at some time in the future, but rather that our avenues for voluntary interaction are restricted in the present.  As for how I would handle a threat without resorting to violence; if there is an explicit threat against me, the use of violence against such threat  has no moral content.  Violence may have to be used to handle threats, but it is rarely economical. There are many free market institutions that have specialized in deescalation of conflicts, with minimal or no use of state power.  The most prevalent among these are currently replacing the police department and court system in Detroit, which have collapsed under their own weight.

 

 

 

Simplified, don't destroy your environment to make a profit and don't screw over your fellow men to make a profit.

 

 

You have not presented any universal principles by which we may judge human action.  Dsayers was commendable in his analysis of these purported principles.

 

I would be hesitant to assume everything that operates under a government is coercive. Everything, by that argument, becomes coercive since government is involved in almost all aspect of society, even the internet.

 

This is a straw man.  Nobody on this forum, and I doubt anyone in the world, has asserted that "everything that operates under a government is coercive."  The modern state relies on voluntary transactions within the free market to grow the economy, so they have something to tax.