IsaacGage860 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 This is a "debate" between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux over the merits of an Anacap stateless society and a RBE (resource based economy). Both agree on the glaring flaws of the current system. Where they diverge is on the solution. Molyneux argues that the removal of the State and the initiation of the use of force is the way we begin to work towards a more prosperous and peaceful society. Joseph argues that even without a State, the free market would still have plutocratic overlords who would continue to oppress humanity through absolute control. He also argues that because we have so much technology at the moment and that because it will only continue to expand, there is no need for anyone to be entrepreneurial anymore. Basically we can just hand out free stuff due to our abundance. This view is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons that are easily explained with basic economics. A foundational concept of economics is the idea that humans have near infinite desires or needs, but we have noticeably scarce resources. In other words, scarcity is a constant of the human condition. No amount of "technology" is ever going to erase this reality unless someone creates a machine that can make food and water out of anti-matter. Until such a time, we are constrained by what the Earth can provide to us. Peter wants for there to be free access to the world's resources so that anyone can fulfill whatever need they have at the push of a button. I like to draw a comparison between Star Trek or Wall-E whenever I hear this argument. The problem with this is again human desires are near infinite. If you tired to institute this there would be massive demand with the same fixed amount of supply. People would want to have fleets of Mercedes, Lamborghinis, maybe a few estates, and all other kinds of stuff. Joseph argues that at some point people would realize that they need not steal from others because there is plenty to go around. The major problem with this is that it is a vague timeframe, when exactly will people realize this? 1 year? 3 years? 10 years? Also, if you are not using price signals to allocate resources, how is it done? Might makes right? Genetic superiority? It will never work because eventually you get old and people who are younger than you assume the mantle and reverse everything you worked to build. Similar to ritual of exchanging the "One Ring To Rule Them All" every four years in America, the problem with central planning is there is always the possibility that somebody you don't like will be granted the prerogative to determine how your life will play out. There is also the issue of who will build all of these machines that will do all the work for us. If this is indeed the goal behind the RBE then people who are engineers and scientists are going to have to forgo quite a large portion of their lives in service of building this future society. These people are not going to undergo such a huge project without compensation. I probably sound like a broken record at this point but this idea is essential: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Lets assume these scientists are not going to be paid with money. If that is the case how will they be compensated for their efforts? I would imagine they would demand ownership rights, after all it was their intellectual rigor that brought about the transforming of society. The idea that people are just going to do this out of the kindness of their hearts is simply delusory. Even non-profits and charities have to solicit donations or some other form of currency in exchange for their services. Nothing is for free, there is always a cost. This debate can sort of serve as an intelligence test. If one truly believes that anything can be free, I would invite you to open up a health clinic or any other kind of business and not charge anybody for your services period. You may notice that people will begin to overconsume whatever it is you have to offer to point of there being dangerous shortages. I mean just look at what happens when someone goes onto a college campus with "free" anything. So in conclusion, a RBE sounds really nice on paper and within the realm of abstractions, but when put into practice it hauntingly resembles Communism. RBE advocates argue that the only way this can ever work is if everyone is on board. A series of questions I would ask them is this: " How do you get people on board with this? With force and coercion? Or through voluntary exchange and a respect for property rights? If people do not sign on to this, what is your reaction? And finally, if these ideas are so wonderful and superior to the current system why are you still debating the merits? What is stopping you from building this paradise?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdever Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 The only reason people can even entertain the idea that we could have an RBE based around abundant resources is because we live in a more or less capitalist society. Capitalism can provide the illusion of abundance because the price system allows resources to be allocated extremely efficiently. You can walk into a store now and see such an abundance of goods and products that you may speculate about why there is so much food in front of you yet there are people elsewhere who are hungry, and maybe how you can redistribute those resources so everyone can have what they want, but the minute you try to do that you run into the calculation problem. The more you interfere and remove price signals, the more resources will be wasted or allocated inefficiently meaning they will amount to much less. Were we to actually try to implement a Resource Based Economy the reality of scarce resources would hit Peter Joseph right in his face. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritual-Autarky Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 According to the link, thsi was a real debate that happend? Wicked cool! (says that in our age :-? :-D ) i hope Stefan gave that miserable libtard an intellectuall thrashing to rmemeber. jsoeph Fraud.. rEminds me of batshit crazy people such as Jacqe Frescoand L Larouche.... Fucking hopium will proved the ....... I wonder the role of deviant new-age marxism allows the se to keep popping up... It very much seems to be a . Very much like a religous current ,based on utopianism (instead of on G-d) and on ..... TO call this the Counter-Tradition based on egalitarianism.. These liberal ykw orders of Eurpeo seem tobe infested... Maybe there is need for the states there to shut them down, or Montressor them out existnece privatley for the deviance against M doctrine (throguh plagiarism and liberalsim of the degress and mythos, and the Profane Atheiszation of ) hoepfulyl they will be brought to an end.....or (for sake of stabiltiy) taken out. Someone liek PEter (erev Ravvit) Joseph, have sympathies for authortiatirasn such as Nrth Korea or the PRC. Better they be Mercader (either ideologically) some state agression may, but unlike many of more anal-retentive ideologues here, I am not averse to state soemtimes As much as a lvoer of liberty I am, I of peopel aligned to communism, nowr will I particularly be in loiind to mourn for someone like Peter (Erev-Ravvit) Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Anarchy does not equal NO RULES but instead it IS NO RULERS. Once Peter Joseph has internalised that, he'll give up (hopefully) with false fantasies of a working centralised planning system. (I think.) Highly informative breakdown of the debate by Stefan Molyneux : "Zeitgeist Examined: Peter Joseph/Stefan Molyneux Debate Analysis" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveSmith Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 On 2/8/2018 at 7:03 PM, barn said: Anarchy does not equal NO RULES but instead it IS NO RULERS. Once Peter Joseph has internalised that, he'll give up (hopefully) with false fantasies of a working centralised planning system. (I think.) Highly informative breakdown of the debate by Stefan Molyneux : "Zeitgeist Examined: Peter Joseph/Stefan Molyneux Debate Analysis" Hi guys, even though I'm a fan of Stefan, and like his philosophical outlook on life, I believe Peter Joseph has some good ideas too! For example, I don't think that creation of abundance has much to do with capitalism or free markets. It's mostly a product of technology which helps us produce more with less. Thus, advance in technology is increase in abundance, since we can produce more goods with less resources! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGreg Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Capitalism taken to the extreme has massive problems. Most of those problems come from externalities. I wrote entire posts on this - you can search this board. Capitalism is A and B deciding that C is for dinner. All these externalities build up, and they're not accounted for by the NAP. Why? Because there is no direct aggressor. When you get evicted from your house or your lake gets polluted, it's all done in the name of "private property enFORCEment". Yes, force is used and you call it "defensive force" but the people on the receiving end have needs that are being threatened by the system. No one asked them when they got fired, or when the lake was sold. The system coerces the vast majority of people to work jobs they don't like, often jobs that will be replaced with automation very soon and they'll constantly scramble to avoid food and housing insecurity like rats from a sinking ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) Hi @SteveSmith Perhaps I'm not understanding you properly, could you elaborate?... When you say(after having quoted my entire post), 6 hours ago, SteveSmith said: even though I'm a fan of Stefan, and like his philosophical outlook on life, I believe Peter Joseph has some good ideas too! a. Does that mean that you assumed, I didn't see any value in any of his ideas? b. What ideas of his do you like? Why? How are those ideas verified, do you think? c. Would you agree with what I have written about the major distinction regarding Anarchy? Also, 6 hours ago, SteveSmith said: For example, I don't think that creation of abundance has much to do with capitalism or free markets. It's mostly a product of technology which helps us produce more with less. Thus, advance in technology is increase in abundance, since we can produce more goods with less resources! d. Is it an accurate statement to say that what you are saying is a circular argument, self-justifying, doesn't provide a proof for the validity of the statement? Something like, (I'll be butchering your quote but with good intentions, for illustrative purposes only, hope you don't mind that. ) "I don't think, the existence of international flights has much to do with aviation or the needs of people to travel long distances in a short period of time. It's mostly a product of entrepreneurial efforts which helps us have access to more travel options with less money. Thus, advance in entrepreneurial efforts is increase in abundance of services, since we can have more international flights with less money!" Do you see, what I see? (i.e. - running is healthy, those who wish to be healthy should run.) e. Can circular arguments be proof of concepts, not self-serving by themselves? Barnsley p.s. Just for funsies, though many times my experience has been regarding Peter Joseph's explanation... Edited February 20, 2018 by barn funsies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveSmith Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 7 hours ago, barn said: Hi @SteveSmith Perhaps I'm not understanding you properly, could you elaborate?... When you say(after having quoted my entire post), a. Does that mean that you assumed, I didn't see any value in any of his ideas? b. What ideas of his do you like? Why? How are those ideas verified, do you think? c. Would you agree with what I have written about the major distinction regarding Anarchy? Also, d. Is it an accurate statement to say that what you are saying is a circular argument, self-justifying, doesn't provide a proof for the validity of the statement? Something like, (I'll be butchering your quote but with good intentions, for illustrative purposes only, hope you don't mind that. ) "I don't think, the existence of international flights has much to do with aviation or the needs of people to travel long distances in a short period of time. It's mostly a product of entrepreneurial efforts which helps us have access to more travel options with less money. Thus, advance in entrepreneurial efforts is increase in abundance of services, since we can have more international flights with less money!" Do you see, what I see? (i.e. - running is healthy, those who wish to be healthy should run.) e. Can circular arguments be proof of concepts, not self-serving by themselves? Barnsley p.s. Just for funsies, though many times my experience has been regarding Peter Joseph's explanation... I'll try to keep it as simple as possible and stick to the main points. What I don't address now, we can go over later because I don't want to move into too many directions at once. I don't see it as a circular argument because international flights are a part of aviation, i.e. flying. On the other hand, you can have progress without free markets and capitalism. So in the first case one is impossible without the other, while in the other case two could coexist, but are not the same nor is one necessary for the other to exist. Meaning, you don't need capitalism to have progress. On the other hand, you do need aviation to have international flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 hour ago, SteveSmith said: 'll try to keep it as simple as possible and stick to the main points. What I don't address now, we can go over later because I don't want to move into too many directions at once. No, thank you. I preferred that you answered all. Naturally, you don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveSmith Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, barn said: No, thank you. I preferred that you answered all. Naturally, you don't have to. No, I'm sorry, but from my experience, branching forum debates lead to a mess which leads nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barn Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 hour ago, SteveSmith said: No, I'm sorry, but from my experience, branching forum debates lead to a mess which leads nowhere. Sure. Have a good one! Barnsley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveSmith Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, barn said: Sure. Have a good one! Barnsley Hey, you too buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 But technology was created here in free markets. Whereas in Russia they murdered farmers and engineers. Allocation of resources made sense to feed the politician in Moscow, while the people producing the food starved... Did Russia create one new thing in the 70 years they had communism? Anything at all to offset the destruction of industry and human capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Sounds good to me. "In the long run we're all dead, right?" Eradicate the population of a small low IQ carribean or pacific island and you too can have a place in the sun. Would require a joint venture, viking style though. I mean the word cannibal comes from the carribean right? "Resource based economy" not excatly a wide selection of livestock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveSmith Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 12 hours ago, Jsbrads said: But technology was created here in free markets. Whereas in Russia they murdered farmers and engineers. Allocation of resources made sense to feed the politician in Moscow, while the people producing the food starved... Did Russia create one new thing in the 70 years they had communism? Anything at all to offset the destruction of industry and human capital? This is patently false. Technology has been utilized since people existed. Every country, tribe or any group in history had a certain level of technological advancement. Whether they used rockets or spears, they utilized technology. Please don't make such patently false arguments like the free markets creating technology. No need to bring the Soviet Union into the discussion. Please drop the emotional arguments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts