3 "questions" from Peter 'the structural violence' Joseph.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Structural violence of the free market?

 

Hey PJ! The free market has no "structure". That's why it's free. 

[shirgall]

The smart folks realize they are not in the carrier pigeon industry, but rather in the message delivering industry, and are always looking for ways to innovate. The bad things about erecting barriers to market entry is the complacency of a cushy position. Creative destruction exists, but we sure as heck don't want to stop it because things are merely good enough.

[NotDarkYet]

I'm confused.

 

I literally have no idea who or what will be producing (and growing) the wealth in a Zeitgeist world.

 

Robots???  

 

I'm at a loss.

 

Can somebody explain the idea to me like I was 9 years old.

[McBeer]

I'm confused.

 

I literally have no idea who or what will be producing (and growing) the wealth in a Zeitgeist world.

 

Robots???  

 

I'm at a loss.

 

Can somebody explain the idea to me like I was 9 years old.

 

I found the zeitgeist answer. "Science". Seriously, although I don't think even a 9 year old would accept their answer.

A while ago I forced myself to suffer through some zeitgeist videos to try to figure out why anyone would continue producing all the resources that they plan on redistributing. It became quite clear to me that P-Jo and the other zeitgeisters have little to no understanding of how resources are created. Wherever the logic fails, they insert the magic solution for everything. science.

[luxfelix]

I don't think I made it to the part about Game Theory (or I wasn't paying close enough attention...).

 

How is the comparison to the market valid (or not) in the Zeitgeist perspective?

[Magnus]

Kind of?

.

This mode of discussion seems to be a pattern for you -- so far, you have either claimed that you are merely summarizing or repeating Peter Joseph's arguments, or you are quibbling with people in this thread who disagree with him. So far, I have not seen you advance any arguments of your own, or take a position on Peter Joseph's arguments, and defend it.

 

(And, by the way, Peter Joseph's interpretation of the state of technology is not especially interesting or useful. I happen to know a little bit about artificial intelligence, and so far he hasn't ever said anything specific at all, much less anything new. He is making economic observations, and ethical arguments, so that is where I will focus my attention.)

 

So, I will ask you to get off the rhetorical fence, and take a position on either his economic assertions, or his ethical assertions. What part, if any, of Peter Joseph's economic analysis, or ethical propositions, do you find to be meritorious, and why?

[Lars]

I'm confused.

 

I literally have no idea who or what will be producing (and growing) the wealth in a Zeitgeist world.

 

Robots???  

 

I'm at a loss.

 

Can somebody explain the idea to me like I was 9 years old.

You didn't miss anything, "robots!" sums it up. He believes that all human survival needs can be fully addressed by a self-perpetuating omniscient robotic workforce.

 

Then comes the universal freedom to attend extremely important Zeitgeist book club meetings where we pine over Peter Joseph for the rest of eternity.

 

*brain short-circuits*

[Magnus]

You didn't miss anything, "robots!" sums it up. He believes that all human survival needs can be fully addressed by an eternal omniscient robotic work-force.

 

*brain short-circuits*

Don't forget about the benevolent father ... er, supercomputer that will dispense bounteous abundance and justice to all, and never require anything but our obedience.

 

But don't ask to see the algorithm for it because there isn't one.

[Lars]

Don't forget about the benevolent father ... er, supercomputer that will dispense bounteous abundance and justice to all, and never require anything but our obedience.

 

But don't ask to see the algorithm for it because there isn't one.

You'd think he would research and/or test the plausibility of his ideas before thrusting them forth like some flawless answer to everything.

 

I swear, that fucking ego...

 

There's nothing original or cutting-edge about welfare.

 

As Stefan has mentioned, more processing power does not enable computers to determine the best course of action which satisfies billions of conflicting interests. We cannot rely on fast computers to somehow predict the future.

 

Machines are only able to achieve what humans are capable of programming them to achieve.

[PGP]

I think PJ has a big problem(yes, just one).

He has pushed out this stuff and nailed himself to it. The more time goes on, the more ridiculous he sounds. What was a "zeitgeist", is now a dvd weathering away at the bottom of a sock drawer. I've often thought that the rise of these movements is proportional to the number of useless degrees people get and the useless made-up job roles they fulfill on the back of taxes or nonsense regs. I get stick all the time and have to deal with "stakeholders" like environmentalists and "community" leaders in resource management who have never produced or managed anything in their lives. They do not know work, only the weasel-worded code of the local authority or the "law". Rant over.

 

I would not be surprised if he changes direction to a SJW or the likes or comes up with some new fantabulous idea that he only ever thought of but that he can only hint at that nobody can understand because he's so smart and good because.......structural violence.

I should have truncated that last sentence......

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

This link is for Ken Cotton:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhhJAGjBIEw

 

Regarding the 40-year pigeon carrying business:

 

1. Why doesn't an able businessman have multiple streams of income?

2. Why didn't this businessman invest his excess money in various things that provide passive income (rental properties, other businesses that operate mostly without his input, using his money to make private loans, etc.)?

3. If he's smart enough to run a business profitably for 40 years, why isn't he smart enough to start a new one?

4. Why isn't he on the internet bandwagon as soon as he recognizes what it's worth? Last time I checked, AT&T doesn't have a lot to do with telegraphs anymore.

 

...and so on.

[Ken Cotton]

This mode of discussion seems to be a pattern for you -- so far, you have either claimed that you are merely summarizing or repeating Peter Joseph's arguments, or you are quibbling with people in this thread who disagree with him. So far, I have not seen you advance any arguments of your own, or take a position on Peter Joseph's arguments, and defend it.

 

(And, by the way, Peter Joseph's interpretation of the state of technology is not especially interesting or useful. I happen to know a little bit about artificial intelligence, and so far he hasn't ever said anything specific at all, much less anything new. He is making economic observations, and ethical arguments, so that is where I will focus my attention.)

 

So, I will ask you to get off the rhetorical fence, and take a position on either his economic assertions, or his ethical assertions. What part, if any, of Peter Joseph's economic analysis, or ethical propositions, do you find to be meritorious, and why?

 

Sure. I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, because I enjoy conversation.

 

So, PJ has a bunch of complementary designs that will be financed by... no one and everyone! This isn't as imposslbe as it sounds, because there are numerous state offers for progressive science projects. He might have something in mind like tiered water wheel style farms, and who buys them? The state I suppose, or maybe just people with a cultic obession with his vision. Cults have been known to build entire compounds off the sweat of their backs just due to the insanity of their collective quest.

 

Now, PJ's utopian computer is... more or less impossible. What's not impossible is a dystopian computer. We have the raw computing power to meet the basic needs of multiple people. PJ is going to offer a perfect computer, and make a good computer. PJ's vision of the future is a computer that beams steaks to you every day. The reality is probably a computer that renders you gruel every day. He thinks that everyone will get their own mansion to live in, but the reality is probably that everyone will live in a cramped apartment the size of a cargo container. Is his idea of a computer-run human farm possible? Sure it's possible. Not today, but the capacity for that is inevitable. We already have almost fully automated farms and greenhouses, so regulating human beings to a similar lifestyle isn't impossible at all.

 

People shouldn't mistake my understanding of his vision and ideas as agreement with them. I understand what he's aiming for, but I also understand what is more realistic. He's made frankly absurd claims like "people will only have to work 3 hours a week" which is... stupid. Unless we get these seemingly mythical androids that can do everything humans can - in which case the extinction of humans is inevitable.

 

Can we provide food, water, and energy for the entire world? Sure it's possible, but only by stepping on a lot of toes. Are there certain movements ( religious frenzy ) historically that can make a mass of people operate against conventional reason? Sure. It's possible. We should hope it doesn't happen, but, a nuclear crusade where we kill 90% of the world's population and then consign ourselves to LSD-laden iron maidens is only one inflammatory cult or mind-altering virus away.

[Magnus]

Sure. I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate, because I enjoy conversation.

 

So, PJ has a bunch of complementary designs that will be financed by... no one and everyone! This isn't as imposslbe as it sounds, because there are numerous state offers for progressive science projects. He might have something in mind like tiered water wheel style farms, and who buys them? The state I suppose, or maybe just people with a cultic obession with his vision. Cults have been known to build entire compounds off the sweat of their backs just due to the insanity of their collective quest.

 

Now, PJ's utopian computer is... more or less impossible. What's not impossible is a dystopian computer. We have the raw computing power to meet the basic needs of multiple people. PJ is going to offer a perfect computer, and make a good computer. PJ's vision of the future is a computer that beams steaks to you every day. The reality is probably a computer that renders you gruel every day. He thinks that everyone will get their own mansion to live in, but the reality is probably that everyone will live in a cramped apartment the size of a cargo container. Is his idea of a computer-run human farm possible? Sure it's possible. Not today, but the capacity for that is inevitable. We already have almost fully automated farms and greenhouses, so regulating human beings to a similar lifestyle isn't impossible at all.

 

People shouldn't mistake my understanding of his vision and ideas as agreement with them. I understand what he's aiming for, but I also understand what is more realistic. He's made frankly absurd claims like "people will only have to work 3 hours a week" which is... stupid. Unless we get these seemingly mythical androids that can do everything humans can - in which case the extinction of humans is inevitable.

 

Can we provide food, water, and energy for the entire world? Sure it's possible, but only by stepping on a lot of toes. Are there certain movements ( religious frenzy ) historically that can make a mass of people operate against conventional reason? Sure. It's possible. We should hope it doesn't happen, but, a nuclear crusade where we kill 90% of the world's population and then consign ourselves to LSD-laden iron maidens is only one inflammatory cult or mind-altering virus away.

None of what you've said here takes a position on anything. You've again summarized PJ's ideas (fantasies, really), said that you don't agree with some (mostly-unspecified) parts of it all, and said nothing about what you want, advocate for, or assert an ethical proposition (or principles for deriving ethical propositions).

 

Would you drop the Devil's Advocate bit (which you're not really doing anyway)? What ethical principles are you operating with when you evaluate various ideas about a better or worse future?

[Ken Cotton]

I thought it was clear, but I can be more specific.

 

I think that his ideas of a computer-run society are socially acceptable if people enter it by consent. People tend to generally agree that free will is a good thing, even if it means choosing to have your decision making handled by someone else. The only problem there would be with the inevitable children of this computerized land. Just like with slavery, they wouldn't really have a choice but to be born into a state of bondage. There's no credible reason to think that the children would reach an age of majority with the ability to choose to opt-out of the society. That is one of the factors that makes the entire process inherently unethical, in terms of violating free will.

 

I think he does have some good ideas, as far as automation and resource sharing is concerned. There's verses in the bible that talk about "common blessings" which I think are something we can recreate. The idea behind common blessings is that things like farms growing crops for evil people are the result of God establishing basic rules for the world that apply to everyone. I'm not saying that to assert that that's the case, I'm using the core idea as an example. In modern society, something like roads would probably equate to a "common blessing". People don't generally have to pay for roads directly in order to be able to use them, outside of highway or bridge tolls. We don't bar the extremely poor from riding their bicycles on the road even if they can't afford to pay taxes or choose not to by being perpetually unemployed. In this fashion, roads are a sort of "common blessing" in society. PJ seems to think that we can automate resource gathering and production to the point where people pretty much don't need to work anymore. If that's the case, then I think it's fine to buoy the lowest elements of society explicitly.

 

This already happens to some degree, but I think that liberals/socialists are onto something about maintaining human dignity. The average homeless person eating out of garbage cans probably does better than a lot of mainstream people centuries ago, but the fact that they have to dig through garbage is pretty humiliating. It reflects poorly on a society when their weakest demographics are rooting around through trash like animals. Not that I personally think they need a free ride - I'm all for forcing these people into work camps. That's where the pros and cons of my outlook end up surfacing. What do you do with that class of people once you have vastly superior automatons to replace them? I think it's better to man up and own your ideology by executing people than it is to let them waste away swept under the rug. If you intend to kill people who aren't profitable, the least you can do is extend them the respect of doing it yourself instead of cowardly relying on the elements to do it for you.

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't think I made it to the part about Game Theory (or I wasn't paying close enough attention...).

 

How is the comparison to the market valid (or not) in the Zeitgeist perspective?

 

It was just a passing reference to the game theory of the market in this particular video. He also mentioned it in one of the videos addressing the Molyneux debate. Being totally unschooled on Game Theory, I have a problem applying it to the free market, mainly because it's not a game.

 

Don't forget about the benevolent father ... er, supercomputer that will dispense bounteous abundance and justice to all, and never require anything but our obedience.

 

But don't ask to see the algorithm for it because there isn't one.

 

One of the most suspicious aspects of TZM is the world's resources being managed entirely by a super computer. Who writes the programs? Who maintains the infrastructure? What TZM doesn't explain is that there would have to be a built in technocracy behind the scenes running the show.

[MarcAnthony]

Game theory, in my limited understanding from watching a Russel Crowe movie, is that in certain competitions it can be mutually beneficial to have everyone cooperate for a smaller goal than destroy one another going after the larger and more valuable goal. In the movie it related to picking up girls at a bar but the principle is very applicable to a free market. People try and use it to promote collectivism but that's because they dont think individualism contains cooperation or anything other than ruthless selfishness

[Ken Cotton]

Game Theory is essentially the study of strategy. It's kind of like a science. You guys would probably actually like it a lot because it applies logic to human behavior and then builds structures to explain why people make certain decisions and possible outcomes.

 

It actually applies pretty strongly to markets and economies.

[MMX2010]

This already happens to some degree, but I think that liberals/socialists are onto something about maintaining human dignity. The average homeless person eating out of garbage cans probably does better than a lot of mainstream people centuries ago, but the fact that they have to dig through garbage is pretty humiliating.

 

Have you either asked the homeless directly, or acquired any scientific research on the relationship between "homelessness" and "lack of dignity"?

 

I ask because: (1) Many homeless people are portrayed on television and by Daniel Mackler in his research on mental illness as having extremely high amounts of dignity.  (2) If you're wrong about the lack-of-dignity that homeless people feel, then you're projecting your own expectations of lack-of-dignity onto the homeless themselves, rather than understanding homeless people as they are. 

[dsayers]

Game theory, in my limited understanding from watching a Russel Crowe movie, is that in certain competitions it can be mutually beneficial to have everyone cooperate for a smaller goal than destroy one another going after the larger and more valuable goal. In the movie it related to picking up girls at a bar but the principle is very applicable to a free market.

 

I assume the cooperation you're referring to would be like price fixing for example. It might sound good on paper, but doesn't bare out in practice. Let's suppose all providers of a certain product/service agree to sell their goods at a higher price than the market would otherwise abide because this pact means nobody would underbid them, meaning people would have to pay their price if they wanted the good. The first person to cross that pact is going to have as much business as they can handle and be a market savior to the consumers, who undoubtedly far outnumber the pact-ers.

 

Competition and consequences are what make a free market self-correcting. 

[MarcAnthony]

Your assumption that I meant price fixing is incorrect.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of compromise for mutual benefit. We agree not to all rush at once for the gold and each walk away with silver. Yes it can be used, like any tactic, to deceive others but I don't see it as inherently deceptive.

[dsayers]

Could you give an example then please? I don't know what you're talking about. You say compromise for mutual benefit but compromise is lose-lose while mutual benefit is win-win.

[shirgall]

Your assumption that I meant price fixing is incorrect.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of compromise for mutual benefit. We agree not to all rush at once for the gold and each walk away with silver. Yes it can be used, like any tactic, to deceive others but I don't see it as inherently deceptive.

 

All voluntary transactions are for mutual benefit. What's the distinction?

[luxfelix]

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

@EndTheUsurpation I took a quick look at Game Theory/Decision Theory/Ludic Fallacy via Wikipedia, and the information seems to strongly support your statement (especially the ludic fallacy) that the free market is not a game (even if games can help to model markets/economies/decisions?).

 

Would it be inaccurate to state that free markets are generally competitive within niches while cooperative between trading parties (similar to inter-vs. intra-capital)?

 

Maybe there are/is a term(s) for it? (I can't think of it/them at the moment...   )

 

As dsayers pointed out, cooperative price-fixing doesn't work in a free market; likewise, as shirgall stated, all voluntary transactions are for mutual (read cooperative?) benefit. I don't see these as contradicting one another, perhaps in part because, even without the initiation of force (passing the ethos test), price-fixing will not be the most efficient way to fulfill demands (failing the logos test), whereas voluntary trade passes both tests (no initiation of force, and it's more efficient than price-fixing etc. otherwise they wouldn't trade) and will therefore be more preferable and logical (I'm not factoring in pathos for these examples).

 

On the other side, competition in every niche for a party would most likely be inefficient so we utilize specialization/expertise/division of labor, whereas competition within those niches (as in supplementary goods/services vs. complementary goods/services) become great catalysts for innovation and economies of scale.

 

I hope that makes sense... ?

[powder]

Structural violence of the free market?

 

Hey PJ! The free market has no "structure". That's why it's free. 

brilliant!  

[Ken Cotton]

Have you either asked the homeless directly, or acquired any scientific research on the relationship between "homelessness" and "lack of dignity"?

 

I ask because: (1) Many homeless people are portrayed on television and by Daniel Mackler in his research on mental illness as having extremely high amounts of dignity.  (2) If you're wrong about the lack-of-dignity that homeless people feel, then you're projecting your own expectations of lack-of-dignity onto the homeless themselves, rather than understanding homeless people as they are. 

A person is capable of buoying their own dignity and self-worth if they are strong, but there are many homeless people who lack that ability. The majority tend to turn to drugs and form addictions to those drugs. Drug addiction stems from two main areas, physical dependency and deficiences in self worth. Drug addiction and homelessness are very closely linked together with the majority of homeless people being addicted to drugs.

 

If you are effectively homeless ( this includes couch surfing, temporary residence with family, etc ) and you're performing oral sex on the street corner to satisfy a drug habit, you aren't leading a dignified existence. If you're homeless and you can't afford food so you're rummaging through garbage cans to eat scraps or get bottles, you aren't leading a dignified existence. If you're committing crimes like theft or drug trafficking, you aren't leading a very dignified existence. When the vast majority of society prefers to ignore the fact that you exist and considers you to be a nuisance, you aren't leading a dignified existence.

 

I've lived in and around poverty for most of my life. I know the poor and homeless very well. I know what it feels like to wear hand-me-downs or dirty clothes to school and be regarded as scum for it. I know personally the feeling of being reviled by the strong and successful for being akin to vermin. I know it and I've overcome it, and in having done so aspire to give the willing and able the tools to overcome it. I do not tolerate weakness and failure, and will not afford the homeless free housing. I seek only to deliver the crucible that will create from the dredges of society those who deserve to ascend.

 

Structural violence is real. The need to give the poor opportunity is real. What matters is that we deliver a sustainable, equally real system that separates the wheat from the chaff.

[MarcAnthony]

Could you give an example then please? I don't know what you're talking about. You say compromise for mutual benefit but compromise is lose-lose while mutual benefit is win-win.

Well, like I had said, I was basing my knowledge of game theory off how it was explained in the movie A Beautiful Mind. In the movie the example that inspires the idea is a group of guys all vying for the hottest girl in the bar. Figuring that they will cancel each other out if they all fight for her attention they decide to just ask out her more homely friends who are desperate for attention. And in that way they "all get laid".

 

True, I hadn't really reconsidered this scenario in a truly free market but I can imagine it applicable in dispute resolution over ownership claims perhaps, wherein the value is time sensitive? Idk really, tbh. There are always natural constraints on situations that require some level of compromise. The degree of risk and availability can determine the level of compromise, and therein perhaps game theory could be applicable.

 

Ill admit that I dont know much about game theory and didnt see it as price fixing. Only as a way for people to get laid...

[luxfelix]

Relevant to game theory and economics:

 

[Magnus]

I've lived in and around poverty for most of my life. I know the poor and homeless very well. I know what it feels like to wear hand-me-downs or dirty clothes to school and be regarded as scum for it. I know personally the feeling of being reviled by the strong and successful for being akin to vermin. I know it and I've overcome it, and in having done so aspire to give the willing and able the tools to overcome it. I do not tolerate weakness and failure, and will not afford the homeless free housing. I seek only to deliver the crucible that will create from the dredges of society those who deserve to ascend.

 

Structural violence is real. The need to give the poor opportunity is real. What matters is that we deliver a sustainable, equally real system that separates the wheat from the chaff.

I'm very sorry for the abuse and neglect you experienced.

 

I didn't grow up around chronic poverty, but I did experience first-hand the kind of domestic chaos that many of the poor and working poor experience. It's hard on the children, since adults often find it easy to foist the hardships onto them.

 

In my career, I work with the poor (and indigent) almost daily, and I see the raw deal they get from government. But I still do not understand what you mean by "structural violence." I see persistent corruption and abuse by the police. And I see the trap of unemployment and family dissolution and ruined neighborhoods caused by welfare. But the cause of all that isn't some nebulous "structure." It's just government.

 

And, to the extent the poor (and homeless) are prevented from "access to resources," that's just property rights.

 

Is there some other component of "structural violence," beyond (a) the State or (b) property rights? Because I believe there is no solution to all of these social problems that's better than abolishing the former and preserving the latter.

 

Also, I was wondering what you meant by "sustainable, equally real system that separates the wheat from the chaff." What specifically do you mean, in practical terms?

[Ken Cotton]

I'm very sorry for the abuse and neglect you experienced.

 

I didn't grow up around chronic poverty, but I did experience first-hand the kind of domestic chaos that many of the poor and working poor experience. It's hard on the children, since adults often find it easy to foist the hardships onto them.

 

In my career, I work with the poor (and indigent) almost daily, and I see the raw deal they get from government. But I still do not understand what you mean by "structural violence." I see persistent corruption and abuse by the police. And I see the trap of unemployment and family dissolution and ruined neighborhoods caused by welfare. But the cause of all that isn't some nebulous "structure." It's just government.

 

And, to the extent the poor (and homeless) are prevented from "access to resources," that's just property rights.

 

Is there some other component of "structural violence," beyond (a) the State or (b) property rights? Because I believe there is no solution to all of these social problems that's better than abolishing the former and preserving the latter.

 

Also, I was wondering what you meant by "sustainable, equally real system that separates the wheat from the chaff." What specifically do you mean, in practical terms?

 

My primary solution is work camps. I've outlined in my blog a basic concept. The idea would be housing, food, basic amenities. Each person in the camp would be paid a net amount per month into a holding account that would be accessible once they finished their term. Terms would range from say 1-5 years as an example. The weak, unruly, or insane would die. I justify these deaths as a necessary reality, and look to the fact that many homeless people will die as a result of the elements or drug use anyway. Whether they die on the streets neglected by society or in a work camp is of little real difference in my opinion.

 

After having worked in the camp ( say a mill type operation ) they will have learned a routine. They will be more physically fit and skilled. They will also enter the "real world" with a modest holding, enough to cover basic rent and such until they find a job. By this point they would be wholly unaccustomed to the idea of lazing about, so finding a job would be pretty easy as long as the job market has availability. As a nationalist my principle concern is developing the domestic population, so immigration and economic reform would ensure many openings.

 

 

Structural violence is just violence that occurs within or as a result of a structure. The free market, like everything else, has a structure. It is made of matter and operates with the same basic physics as everything else that exists. Even chaos and randomness have a discernable underlying structure. These things wouldn't be able to exist outside of the physical realities of the universe, and so saying they lack any structure is wrong. My assertion of course leads to the conclusion that all violence is structural violence. If you're out in the wilderness and you're eaten by a bear, in a literal sense that's structural violence because you've been subjected to violence within the framework of animal survival, mass, gravity, etc etc. You wouldn't be able to bleed out from a bear mauling you if there weren't some sort of persistent structure that made your blood leave your body.

 

However, just for common conversation, PJ/we separate "structural violence" from routine violence in general. Structural violence in this context refers specifically to violence as the result of artificial constructs or structures. The free market is an artificial construct if you look at the free market as something like a swap meet or bazaar. The free market is more like "survival of the fittest" if you view it as something more abstract, like just constant competition.

 

Even just the basic collection of ideas exhibits structural violence. Good ideas and the truth eat bad ideas and falsehoods. Bad ideas die and good ideas survive. It's less visceral and scary to people because ideas don't tend to jettison blood everywhere and scream when they die, but the result of extinction or death is the same. If you have a bulk of knowledge that is true it puts structural violence on those ideas that are untrue. Structural violence isn't a bad thing, it's just a reality. The successful hard working people of the world are going to succeed and the lazy failures are going to fail. That's life.

[MMX2010]

My primary solution is work camps. I've outlined in my blog a basic concept. The idea would be housing, food, basic amenities. Each person in the camp would be paid a net amount per month into a holding account that would be accessible once they finished their term. Terms would range from say 1-5 years as an example. The weak, unruly, or insane would die. I justify these deaths as a necessary reality, and look to the fact that many homeless people will die as a result of the elements or drug use anyway. Whether they die on the streets neglected by society or in a work camp is of little real difference in my opinion.

 

After having worked in the camp ( say a mill type operation ) they will have learned a routine. They will be more physically fit and skilled. They will also enter the "real world" with a modest holding, enough to cover basic rent and such until they find a job. By this point they would be wholly unaccustomed to the idea of lazing about, so finding a job would be pretty easy as long as the job market has availability.

 

 

Interesting idea there. 

 

Has this ever been tried before?

[Sal9000]

Game theory is pretty important since it helps to minimize risks while maximizing profits. This is why it is related to games where you have the same goal.

[dsayers]

Mr. Cotton, without State interference of perverse incentives, those who didn't provide value to others would already suffer and in some cases die off. You didn't specify, but these work camps you describe don't sound voluntary. How do you justify those who set it up/run it owning themselves while the people in it do not?

[Ken Cotton]

Of course they would dsayers. Just because there is structural violence doesn't mean there aren't other forms of violence. No side has all the answers.

 

 

I justify my actions by the will to power. Not all men are created equal. Those who are willing to rise to the occasion and lead should do so. Those who follow will reap the benefits of doing so, and those who do not will perish. Once you remove the problematic elements of society, the remaining people will follow voluntary. If I can lead 100 people to glory and prosperity at the cost of a handful of dissenting individuals why wouldn't I? Why should our public streets and parks be cluttered by homeless people leaving disease ridden syringes laying around?

 

People who operate such facilities do so by their own free will. There cannot be a leader without the will of the people. They will only show up to build, maintain, and administrate those facilities because they believe in the cause.

[Livemike]

"When I use the term 'market economy' I am simply referring to the core attributes shared by every major market system variation in the world today."

 

Notice the weasel words start pretty quickly.   What is a "core attribute" and what makes it "core"?  What is a "major market system variation" and what makes it "major"?  What makes it a "variation" of the "market system" rather than a different system that shares some characteristics with the market system?  What is the difference between "market system" and "market economy"?  If there is none isn't he using the definition self-referential and therefore useless?

 

Only 3 basic basic characteristics are needed apparently.

The  first is "labor for income" but almost all systems have labor for income.  People work so that they can gain economic goods.  That's pretty universal and so useless for defining "market economy".

 

He then refers to the "whole global economy being based on employment" and "this is how people gain money to survive".  But income isn't necessarily money and labour for income isn't necessarily employment.  He doesn't seem to realise this.  For his definition to work a man who is given all his food for free, housing and utilities for free as part of his job is receiving exactly the same income as a man on the same wage with none of these.  Additionally lots of people don't sell their labour but sell the products of their labour, but that doesn't mean it's not "free market".  Theoretically a free market might have no wage labour. 

 

His description of the second characteristic is that everything is exchanged through a monetary medium, a condition that has never been the case in any society anywhere.  There is literally no society where everything was for sale for monetary gain.  Does he imagine that children but their mother's milk?  This might seem pedantic, but the only rational response to such an amazingly bad definition.  Some goods and services are exchanged through the monetary medium.  Others are not.  Some could be but aren't, some are inherently impossible to exchange for monetary reward, e.g. the love of a good woman. 

 

"And 3rd the overall incentive strategy" whose overall incentive strategy?  In what context?  Does he think that the incentive for everything follow the same pattern? 

 

"Is based on competition for demand."  So how much of the "incentive strategy" has to be based on, say, punishment for it not to be a "market economy"?  10%?  20%?  40%?  Of course when he talks about demand "institution to institution" it jumps over what it means for an institution to be able to "demand" something if it did not get it's resources consensually.

 

"all orientated around the interest to a) save money on production"

But nobody is orientated around that.  What people are orientated around is saving VALUE on production.  It might well cost a small businessman less to work 80 hours a week instead of work 60 and hire an apprentice for 40 hours.  That doesn't mean he'll do it because the VALUE of his extra time is worth more than the VALUE of the money. 

 

"and b) maximise profits from final sales" In what time frame?  Again he's confusing maximising the value of profits from maximizing the profits themselves.  If people truly wanted to maximize profits they would never take a dividend but instead starve to death letting the profits accumulate in the company.  This would be absurd, but it's what his insane model would say happens. 

 

"Question One:  Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment." 

Well no, it doesn't.  The market economy doesn't need to "maintain demand for human employment".  If there is no "demand for human employment" the system doesn't suffer.  It doesn't have "needs" in the sense humans do.  If nobody is employed it doesn't suffer.  People might prefer that people be employed but people are not the system. 

 

"and further economic growth as needed" needed by whom?  Who does he think "needs" this and what can they do to make it happen?
 

"is there any structural incentive to reduce resource use" Yes it's called "resources cost money or goods and services that could otherwise be exchanged for money".  Resources that are rare compared to the amount that people desire to use are more expensive.  It's remarkable that someone could live in the modern world and not know this.  It's remarkable that they could live in the medieval world and not know this.   

 

"is there any structural incentive to reduce... biodiversity loss".  This is a completely separate question unless you think biodiversity is a resource in itself, in which case it's covered by the answer to the resource question.  Now if he actually cares about biodiversity loss there is an incentive, if you offer to prevent biodiversity loss Peter Joseph will agree to pay you.  If he doesn't care about biodiversity loss then why should we? 

 

"Is there any structural incentive to reduce ... the global pollution footprint".   Well that would depend on whether people require permission to pollute other people's property.  Since in his definition everything is owned, any pollution is pollution of someone's property.  If people are not allowed to  pollute other people's property without their OK then those people are likely to demand resources/money to be allowed to do so, thus giving an incentive not to. 

 

This is only the start of his stupidity.  I really don't want to listen to/read (the transcript is available online on blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com) any more of this crap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yagami]

Something I dont understand is why this movement thinks resources aren't limited by the market. I mean support and demand work for shoes so why would this not work for natural resources? Is there no belief in the incentive to find alternatives once a natural resource begins to dwindle? Maybe im wrong but I thought that was pretty foundational  to all economic schools of thought.