The Zeitgeist Movement

Kyle,

Welcome to RoR.

It's a tangent, but you wrote something with which I would take philosophical issue:

To avoid any further confusion I would like to announce my central purpose and position in case any of my messages are unclear: I do not condone such a society, its means, or goals. I do not think it could work, therefore, I don't support it. I simply want to learn more about it.

The primary reason you gave for not supporting it is that you don't think it would work.

This is different from a position where you don't think it would be good (regardless of whether it would work or not). The name for the behavior of supporting things primarily because they work -- instead of supporting them primarily because they are good (or right, or true, or moral) -- is pragmatism. Do you advocate pragmatism?

I am not sure if or how you may respond to this observation, but I wanted to make it nonetheless.

And, again, welcome to the forum.

Ed

Post 21

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 5:42pm

Ed,

You're right, I didn't make that clear, ironic that it was left out of the statement I used to "clear" everything up. Indeed, I wouldn't support something just because it works.

I'm not quite sure what I was going for at the time. I think I meant for the term "work" to mean "to function properly" and "be good" because if something didn't "work" I would naturally think that it may be morally suspect or of faulty design or be damaged to some extent.

Anyway, I sometimes write without considering the reader and this often causes problems.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Post 22

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 8:47pm

Kyle,

Anyway, I sometimes write without considering the reader and this often causes problems.

Aaagh! People accuse me of doing that all the time, and the most troubling aspect of it all is that most of the time they are correct! I lament that I can only repeat earlier promises to re-double my efforts to take them more into consideration the next time.

:-)

I think it has something to do with a process of discovery-while-writing. In other words, I do my best thinking while writing. This is kind of like writing for yourself, instead of for an audience -- though I rarely forget people are out there. Sometimes it backfires on me and my character is tested by whether I'm man enough to apologize for some rhetorical wrongdoings.

I have to say I've been pretty fortunate keeping on some pretty good terms with most folks around here, even though I sometimes write in ways that some might consider to be terribly offensive or at least rudely insensitive. I don't care a heap about many social and political sensibilities, so it isn't natural for me to portray ample etiquette or to be extremely cordial. My characteristic retort to folks who decry my rough edges is that: "It takes all kinds."

That said, I'd like to re-extend gratuity to make it unmistakably clear that I grant you a warm welcome here. You come off as a critical thinker and that is refreshing. Don't get me wrong: In the past, there were loads of "newbie" folks here who preferred fighting to thinking. It was exciting but there were some metaphorical or philosophical casualties, too. Words are just one letter away from swords.

[I just thought of that, thank you very much]

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/27, 9:17pm)

Post 23

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 8:43am

You may also want to read some of Hayek (the Road to Serfdom) and Mises - much of this is freely available on line - and discusses how a centrally planned economy actually impoverishes people. In fact, a free economy empowers individuals to make their own decisions, and is the truest form of "Democracy" that exists. Each person creating and trading value as they see fit.

The role of government is exclusively to prevent theft, fraud, and violence among individuals.

There are complexities, like resolving contract disputes, and that is where other elements of the law come in, but the essentials are all we truly need.

The rest of it is individuals maneuvering for power and advantage and, in fact, using force to achieve it via the government.

Examples include unions, corporations that ask for special benefits or monopolies, and government created agencies that self-perpetuate despite having no legitimate need to exist. There is no need for a department of agriculture, for public forced indoctrination (or education as they call it), or anything else.

Private property can protect the environment. What would you do if someone dumped toxic waste on your lawn? It is actionable legally either as a destruction of property or a criminal act to pollute someone else's property, either directly or indirectly through leakage.

Post 24

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 9:19pm

Ed,

I, too, often express some great ideas while writing. Sometimes I stare at them in disbelief and question whether I actually wrote them.

You shouldn't worry about offending me; as long as your honest I couldn't care less. The author who wishes to please everyone rarely writes books of any substance and value.

P.S. The expression regarding the power of words is great.

Kurt,

Great suggestions, I wonder if my local library has them in stock. Indeed, I know of the inefficiency, and immorality, of centrally planned economies. Although, I often have a difficult time explaining it to others. Perhaps these books will aid me in this matter.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 3:12am

Kyle,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLSxITH-1tE

Spinney is a likable anarchist. He shows knowledge of the TZM here, which you may find useful.

Post 26

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 10:53am

Thanks for the link Teresa. I've never heard of Spinney before and I find him very interesting.

Ironically enough, the more I learn about the faults of resource-based economies, centrally planned economies, and the plans of The Venus Project in general the more I want to watch the two documentaries about the Movement. I'm really curious about how the Movement will resolve these problems or if they will just cover them up and shift attention to the "benefits" of such a society.

Unfortunately, school is keeping me busy but I will have time after this week to do some more research before going to the Movement's meeting. I wonder if the people who will be at the meeting truly understand the motives, goals, and means of the Movement and the resulting consequences. It's a frightening thought.

Post 27

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 12:12am

Kyle, I'm a supporter of The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM). I'd be happy to answer your questions.

To start, a Resource Based Economy (RBE) is not "utopian" or "perfect". There is no such thing. It is just using humanity's best understandings and best technologies. In a RBE, as humanity learned more, that new knowledge would be incorporated into the decision making.

Check out this little animated video about how humanity's views on what "utopia" is has changed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5HNXNXUzz8

Humanity can do a whole lot better than we're doing now, but no one believes in utopia.

Post 28

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 12:18am

Teresa, The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) is not at all like a religion.

"Beliefs" are not used to make decisions.

There are no "truths" that must be followed without question.

Questioning and critical thinking of everything are encouraged by everyone.

There are no leaders. No one tells anyone what to do.

No one is asked to give up anything: money, possessions, etc.

Better yet, let me ask you... What makes you think TZM is like a religion?

Post 29

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 12:35am

"No money"? In other words, no voluntary exchange, exchange of value is controlled by the government, or its not controlled by the government and everyone can steal from everyone. Which means that in such an economic system, individuals do not realize any gain for themselves for the work they do. Which means that no one will be motivated to work... its socialism or extreme fascism. Which means its either mass starvation or mass genocide, or both.
Or in short: "No money" -> "mass death"

Wow. That's quite a jump: "No money" -> "mass death"

There is no need for "exchange" because all of life's necessities are provided to everyone for free in a Resource Based Economy (RBE).

There are no government.

There are no "possessions", aside of personal things. Everything everyone needs is available for free. There is no reason to steal something you can get for free.

The "gains" one realizes in a RBE are all about how helping the real people in their communities. First, most work is automated. Most remaining work will eventually be automated, once humanity determines how it can be done. All work remaining is only what is absolutely necessary, and therefore is a privilege many people would love to do, similar to how people already volunteer their time in today's world for charities, community centres, helping the elderly, etc. Since most work disappears, there is an enormous number of people available to do the small amount of work remaining. Instead of working 40 hour weeks like we're forced to do today, people may work only a couple of hours a week, and only if they want to.

No one is forced by anyone to do anything. True motivation doesn't come from money. Motivation by money is slavery. True motivation comes from love, and passion, and the feelings of a job well done. Do children work only for money? Think school newspapers, volunteering, etc. Do retired people just watch TV all day? Think of how many people keep working because it gives them something to do, despite having adequate money to saved to retire.

Why do you equate "socialism" with "starvation"? We are surrounded by socialism: schools, police, community centres, firefighters, libraries, etc.

A RBE is certainly not fascism. There is no ruling party. No one forces anyone to do anything. All decisions are made using the scientific method.

Post 30

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 12:55am

Money is not something corrupt. Money is awesome.

There was a time when humanity needed money. When scarcity of the necessities of life was a reality.

Since then, humanity has advanced technology to the point now where most work is automated. Think farming. Think production of goods. We can even build homes today completely with automation.

Now, money prevents change. It forces people to work at jobs they despise, that could either be automated or of no real use for society (ie: sales, banking, insurance, etc).

Money creates a "class" system. Some people are born into families or areas where they have opportunities, and others are not. We expect that because some people have money, that others must serve them. We tell ourselves humanity has evolved from ancient "class" systems, but ours is so ingrained in our monetary culture that most can't see it.

All that can be thought of as "moral" reasons money is bad: Why should some people be homeless? Why should some people starve? Why should some people not have access to medical care? Etc, etc.

My real problem with money is that it is an unsustainable system that will certainly collapse. Why? Interest on debt. Who has debt? People, cities, states/provinces, countries, and corporations. Pretty much everyone. When that money was borrowed from banks, it immediately begins creating more debt via interest.

How can that additional debt created via interest be paid back? That money never existed until interest created it out of thin air.

There is not enough money in the world to pay back the debt owed. Does that sound like a problem? The problem is that debt slowly grows everyday via interest. It's like a slowly inflating balloon. People talk about "bubbles" in investing, real estate, etc. The debt "bubble" is the mother of all bubbles, and eventually it must burst.

We're starting to see it in countries around the world: Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc. These are not third-world countries. These are not countries controlled by dictators printing money and creating massive inflation. These are capitalist, democratic economies.

So, if the monetary system is unsustainable, when do we change? Do we wait until the bubble burst and real catastrophe is inflicted on real people, or do we use this time we're living in of relative comfort to start the change.

That's what The Zeitgeist Movement is about: Getting people to think critically about the world around them.

Post 31

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 1:00am

Providing a high standard of living for everyone? Hmm I wonder what this entails in a society where resources are plentiful and free. I can most certainly expect shortages, bribery, and corruption.

Why would you expect shortages? We can already produce the goods people would need. The technology that allows that does not disappear in a Resource Based Economy (RBE). Quite the opposite, in fact. We use that technology to it's fullest to provide for everyone's needs.

How would bribery work in a system where everything is free and no one is forced to do anything they don't want to?

What kind of corruption is possible when there are no leaders and no governments? No one makes decisions for anyone else.

Post 32

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 6:47am

Refuting everything Brent Kyle said would waste too much of my time. Please do not assume that Brent Kyle's words are true simply because no one has disputed them.

Brent Kyle,

What differentiates RBE/ZM from communism/socialism/fascism? No government? How does ZM defend its citizens from rapists, looters, murderers?

In RBE, how does one determine the quantity that each thing should be produced? How does one determine who should be able to consume each thing produced?

Money creates a "class" system. Some people are born into families or areas where they have opportunities, and others are not. We expect that because some people have money, that others must serve them. We tell ourselves humanity has evolved from ancient "class" systems, but ours is so ingrained in our monetary culture that most can't see it.

What the heck? This isn't the middle ages. If you want to become a millionaire, work. Or do you want to tell me that Bill Gates didn't work hard, or that people buy Microsoft Windows because we have to "serve him"? No. Bill Gates gained his wealth by creating and offering a product which was capable of increasing billions of people's productiveness. Rich people can more quickly purchase a business, and make it become productive, verses a poor person must work harder to gain enough value to acquire the property to perform his own business.

All that can be thought of as "moral" reasons money is bad: Why should some people be homeless? Why should some people starve? Why should some people not have access to medical care? Etc, etc.

People should be homeless because they produces less value than the value needed to create and maintain a home, and they do not have the resources to trade for it. People should starve because they create less value than the value of food, and they do not have the resources to trade for it. People should not have access to medical care because they produce less value than the value of the medical care, and they do not have the resources to trade for it. Here I think it should be obvious now to you that if you provided all of these people with their needs, it would be a net loss to the economy for each case. The needy are being provided with more value than the value they create... this is a net loss.

My real problem with money is that it is an unsustainable system that will certainly collapse. Why? Interest on debt... The debt "bubble" is the mother of all bubbles, and eventually it must burst.

You are not criticizing capitalism, the economic/political system that we desire. You are criticizing a system where the majority of leeches have democratic power over the producers.

The leeches force producers to exchange values with USD, so the only way that producers can trade other values for they values they create, is to trade their produce for USD. Hence the USD has value in the market.

The leeches have majority voted to take ~40% of the income of producers. The leeches are spending USD in a irresponsible manner. They permit themselves to spend more than they earn. The leeches claim bankruptcy or similar, and claim that they need not repay their debts.

The leeches permit themselves to create USD out of thin air, and force the producers to accept the newly created money as payment for their debts that were set in a price which was based on the previously existing monetary base.

Unfortunately, we are currently lacking a good solution as to how we (the producers) can defend ourselves from tax enforcement and gold/other backed currency confiscation.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/05, 7:04am)

Post 33

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 10:19am

To start, a Resource Based Economy (RBE) is not "utopian" or "perfect". There is no such thing. It is just using humanity's best understandings and best technologies. In a RBE, as humanity learned more, that new knowledge would be incorporated into the decision making.

Which humans in "humanity"choose what knowledge to adopt and what to ignore or avoid? What are the standards by which knowledge is acquired? What are the standards by which to discriminate knowledge?

Who's decision?

The video was not helpful.

Post 34

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 10:57am

Brent,

I'd like to get your opinion on my review of part of a book written in the mid-1800s:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Blogs/73.shtml

Let me know what you think.

Ed

Post 35

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 2:21am

Teresa,

Which humans in "humanity" choose what knowledge to adopt and what to ignore or avoid?

No one. The scientific method is used to PROVE which knowledge is better at solving specific problems.

What are the standards by which knowledge is acquired? What are the standards by which to discriminate knowledge?

All knowledge is collected and available for anyone to use. The question is, "Why choose one solution over another?" Some knowledge is better at solving specific problems than others. The scientific method is used to make all decisions, and the results of those decisions are fed back into the input so knowledge and solutions can continue improving always.

There is no perfection. No utopia. There is only constant learning and adaptation to changes as they arise.

The video was not helpful

Seriously? Did you watch all three parts? The first part (about 3.5 minutes) is just a little intro with music. Part 2 (almost 8 minutes) and part 3 (about 8.5 minutes) are the parts you need to watch if you like to use words like "utopia". It's animated and humorous, so most people find it entertaining as well as thought-provoking.

Post 36

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 2:21am

Dean Michael Gores,

(Do we refer to each other by full names in this forum?)

Refuting everything Brent Kyle said would waste too much of my time.

One cannot know whether you choose not to or are unable to. This is an empty statement.

Please do not assume that Brent Kyle's words are true simply because no one has disputed them.

What an odd thing to write. Are you afraid people might believe my words without doing their own research (which I always recommend, of course!), but your warning would dissuade them from making such an error?

What differentiates RBE/ZM from communism/socialism/fascism?

Here is a page I like explaining why RBE is not communism:
http://rantyrantrant.blogspot.com/2010/11/resource-based-economy-is-not-communism.html

Why is it not fascism? No leaders. 'nuff said.

Give me your definition of socialism and I'll do the differentiation. Here's an amusing little song called "Socialist!" by comedian/singer Roy Zimmerman to give you something to think about while you think up your definition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4

In RBE, how does one determine the quantity that each thing should be produced?

By necessity. If people want something, it will be produced with the highest quality components for the longest life and re-usability and upgrade-ability. A systems approach is in place to request things as required, and to return them when they're no longer needed.

How does one determine who should be able to consume each thing produced?

No one determines who "should" be able to consume something. There are no leaders. If there isn't enough of something for everyone requesting it, more are produced.

This isn't the middle ages. If you want to become a millionaire, work.

That is precisely the kind of thinking that keeps us working as slaves at meaningless jobs we despise in today's monetary system. Most people work very hard. How many will become millionaires? Let's bring the target down a little. How many people will move up into even the next higher social class?

do you want to tell me that Bill Gates didn't work hard

I didn't say that. You did. Bill Gates came from an upper-middle class family, where is father was a prominent lawyer and his mother served on the board of directors for large corporations. Billy didn't rise out of the ghettos with just hard work. He was given every opportunity: good family life, with the means to send him to top schools. Granted, he made the most of those opportunities. He moved from his upper-middle class roots to the upper-class. Well done, Bill.

The question is, "Is success via hard work like Bill Gates demonstrated the rule, or the exception?" I argue the latter.

Dean, you and I are not completely dissimilar. I read your bio on here. I too went to a well-respected university, got a BSc, worked as a programmer (mostly server-side Web Java programming on top of Oracle/SQLServer/MySql) for more than a decade, and now I'm a business owner.

I know many business owners who work like dogs, and they can barely make payroll. I know, it's not about working hard, it's about working smart. Doesn't every one know that rhetoric?

Rich people can more quickly purchase a business, and make it become productive, verses a poor person must work harder to gain enough value to acquire the property to perform his own business.

Precisely. That's part of how the class system is maintained. The poor take out loans and pay interest that goes straight to the rich that have money to invest, and use that money as you described.

Still, I don't want to argue about the morality of money. Morals are debatable. My problem with money is that it is unsustainable.

People should be homeless because they produces less value than the value needed to create and maintain a home, and they do not have the resources to trade for it. People should starve because they create less value than the value of food, and they do not have the resources to trade for it. People should not have access to medical care because they produce less value than the value of the medical care, and they do not have the resources to trade for it.

Wow. Let's test your belief. Let's say your father has worked at a manufacturing plant for 20 years. The assembly line is is upgraded to newer technology and he gets laid off. He worked hard, didn't turn into Bill Gates, yet his job was made obsolete by new technology. Similar technology became the norm in all manufacturing plants, and your father could not find work. After his savings ran out, he could not make his home payments, so he lost his home. With your reasoning, he should not have a home until he gets a job. His skills are not in demand and he's too old to get a job waiting tables, so he doesn't deserve a home. Am I right on this?

Let's extend this example� He wasn't the only one laid off. All the manufacturing plants in the town upgraded to robotics and most line workers were let go. They didn't have income, so they couldn't support their local businesses, so retail stores, restaurants, car garages, and the like were forced to close. This is not just hypothetical. It's happened in cities around the word, especially in the U.S.A. All of the workers and owners of those businesses that closed now don't have income and can't afford home payments, so they lose their homes too. They don't deserve homes, despite their hard work and loyalty to their businesses and communities?

Now we have real people (that includes families with children) living with no income and no home. They don't deserve food? If a child of one of these homeless families gets sick, that child doesn't deserve medicine? I'm just trying to get this straight. Please let me know if I'm on the right track following your beliefs.

Here I think it should be obvious now to you that if you provided all of these people with their needs, it would be a net loss to the economy for each case. The needy are being provided with more value than the value they create... this is a net loss.

So these people deserve to die in the street from starvation or preventable illnesses? I'm just trying to understand you.

Is what you beileve capitalism is all about? Plentiness for people winning the birth lottery and being born into well-off families, and just try to forget about people sleeping in the streets, cold and starving because they were unlucky in the birth lottery, or made some wrong choices, or were just unlucky in their choice of employment? Please enlighten me further, in case I'm not understanding you.

The leeches this, and the leeches that�

That was kind of a ramble, but I think I understand and generally agree with you.

You are criticizing a system where the majority of leeches have democratic power over the producers.

No, that's not my big problem with money. That "leeches" rant is a moral argument, and I think I agree with you, as I mentioned. I'm not criticizing. Criticism is debatable.

Re-read my earlier message. Every day interest creates new debt, but no corresponding increase in the money supply to match that increase in debt. As soon as the idea of interest began practice, there was not enough money in existence to pay off the debt. The debt can only grow. As I described it, interest created by debt is the mother of all bubbles, and eventually must burst when people, cities, state/provinces, countries and corporations can no longer carry the debt. Can we even imagine what will happen? Nothing like it has ever happened in human history. It's not an opinion. It is the nature of the system. Prove me wrong.

Post 37

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 2:24am

Ed,

I'd like to get your opinion on my review of part of a book written in the mid-1800s

I will when I have time. It's almost 2:30 in the morning and that is some pretty heavy stuff to comment on at my current level of sleepiness.

Cheers.

Post 38

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 3:06am

Ed,

I'd like to get your opinion on my review of part of a book written in the mid-1800s

Your blog page ends with "To be continued". Was it continued, or is this the only page?

Cheers.

Post 39

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 6:06am