The Zeitgeist Movement

Brent Kyle,

How does ZM defend its citizens from rapists, looters, murderers?

If you want to use your own resources to provide for everyone's needs, I'm OK with that. I did not say that you can't help people in need. "and they do not have the resources to trade for it" includes the possibility that others donate resources to them.

If a person is unable to trade for something they need, and no one is willing to donate or lend them the resources... then either they die, or you forcefully take resources from someone to give to the person in need.

I am against forcefully taking resources from someone. I am against the use of property of another when the owner does not consent to the use. I'd prefer that the "needy who no one is willing to help" die over having wealth redistribution.

My last words to you (This conversation is going no where):

Property rights generally boil down to the ability to deny other people access and control of your property. So while this "right" will go away, it will be replaced by the inalienable right of "access" to property. Since no one owns it, it is accessible to you and everyone.

Yes, well, good luck giving everyone inalienable right of "access" to grass fed beef tenderloin, well built homes with scenic views, and to living humans (for transplants, sexual desires).

Post 41

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 12:20pm

Brent,

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

You gave a link to show how RBE is not the exact same as communism in detail, but it failed to show that it is not the exact same as communism in spirit and, more importantly, in outcome. I reply below to 7 of the 10 points found there:

(1)

Property rights generally boil down to the ability to deny other people access and control of your property. So while this "right" will go away, it will be replaced by the inalienable right of "access" to property. Since no one owns it, it is accessible to you and everyone.

Are you aware of the concept called the "tragedy of the commons?"

(4)

In an RBE, property, once liberated, is not confiscated as there is no where to confiscate it to, meaning no one takes control of it.

Are you aware of what it unfortunately took to "liberate" people from the idea of property in communist Russia? Do you even have a ballpark figure regarding how many were forced to die in that majority-approved experiment?

(5)

There is no state in an RBE. Transportation and communication is accessible by all.

Are you aware of the concept called the "Free Rider" problem?

(7)

Technical problems like the cultivation of waste lands and improvement of soil will be dealt with by temporary, spontaneously arising multi-disciplinary teams.

Spontaneous elite expert panels popping out of the woodwork in response to calculated need? Who performs the calculations and how? Are you aware that in communist Russia the State had to set 25 million prices for things? Are you aware of how many unpaid man-hours it would take to calculate 25 million different equations?

If you did an average of one every minute (to account for human exhaustion), it would take you over 17,000 days to arrive at the baseline price for everything. Even if you split the task up among a thousand unpaid workers, it would still take over 17 days to even get a baseline price for things -- and, by that time, a variable would have changed and you may have to immediately run most or all of the numbers again (without a break), ad infinitum.

You may end up in the position where you would have to, at gunpoint, force these 1000 people to work all day on this one task for their entire lives.

(8)

There is no obligation to work. You choose the work you do and the amount you do.

Are you aware of the concept called the "Rent-seeking" and the concept of a "moral hazard?"

(9)

Distinction of towns, cities and nations will fade not because of forced equitable population distribution as there will be none, but because of irrelevance.

Is he saying that you will (magically?) begin to pass by your own next-door neighbor as if he is a stranger from the opposite side of the world -- or that whatever close relationships (value trading-partners) you have with those around you, you will (magically?) start to also equally have with all of the billions of people around the globe?

(10)

Knowledge will be made freely available. All information in society will be transparent. Education will be tailored to meet the children's interests not society's perceived interest. The idea being that given the opportunity to excel in the areas that they have a proclivity for, this type of learning will benefit society more than if learning was standardized and directed.

So, I could have been an astronaut (like I wanted)? And those millions of other kids feeling the same way -- they could all be astronauts, too? Millions of astronauts?

Brent, these questions are serious and affect human lives. I don't mean to belittle that fact by being coy. RBE sounds utopian the way any "sacrifice to a greater good" scheme is utopian.

Ed

Post 42

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 12:28pm

Brent,

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?

It's continued in this discussion link -- found at the bottom of that page.

Ed

Post 43

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 12:36pm

In a free nation, based on free association, I can see no impediment to a group of people forming a commune and trying to live under these ideas, willingly.

They could all agree to abolish private property and so on in their commune. It's hard to see what is keeping these folks from pooling their talents and resources and setting off to give it the old college try.

What I wonder is -- just like in the balance of the world where this has been proposed -- how much abject failure would they tolerate before bailing on the 'free association' thing, and started looking around for unwilling victims to ride, via forced association?

"Hey, we had a vote. We all agreed. You, neighbor to our failing commune, have no right to private property. I know you didn't agree to that, but we thought it would be a really good idea, and six Soc. professors even thought it was a great, Progressive idea, so don't be a reactionary. Cough it up."

regards,
Fred

Post 44

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 2:14pm

I'd cough it up with a .44 Magnum...

there were such communes in the 19th century - they all died, even Oneida had to change to survive...

Post 45

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 6:02pm

Brent,

Do you think it would be okay if three-quarters of the world population died -- as long as the remaining quarter of the population practiced RBE?

Ed

Post 46

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 2:07am

Teresa,

Unfortunately the video didn't hold my interest long enough for the third part.

I understand some people have a short attention span, and 20 minutes of critical thinking is too long. Let me give you the summary�

Imagine you went back in time to even just a few hundred years ago. You met up with people from that time and explained to them what your life is like:

(1) Clean drinking water and hot water available on demand for everyone.

(2) Controlled refrigeration so food stays fresh for days.

(3) Personal freezers so food can last for months.

(4) Electricity powering lights and heaters.

(5) Fast land transportation (via automobiles) that doesn't get tired, injured, or sick.

(6) Air transportation to travel across the continent in hours!

And so on. Try to explain these things we take for granted to a person who lived just a few hundred years ago. What would they say? "Impossible! It's utopian!"

Of course it's not. It's just humanity using their growing understanding of the world and taking advantage of technological advancements.

RBE is just the next step. Some people dismiss it as "utopian". One day humanity will look back at how we live today and shudder at our relatively "primitive" lifestyles and the destruction we cause to our one and only home: The Earth.

Entertaining to whom? Fellow cult members?

What exactly do you mean by "fellow cult members"? Do you belong to a cult? I certainly don't. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "cult".

Post 47

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 2:08am

Dean Michael Gores,

(You're still referring to me by my full name, so shall I assume you prefer this?)

How does ZM defend its citizens from rapists, looters, murderers?

This is one of my favourite parts of a RBE! First, let's reflect on how our current society deals with such aberrant behaviour. First, we wait for such actions happen, resulting in innocent victims. Then we try to catch the perpetrators, which often takes time and results in them committing multiple offences, and still sometimes never getting caught. Finally, if we can catch them and prove their guilt, then we throw them in jail and basically forget about them (also known as "rehabilitation"). This stops that person from committing the crimes again, but as we've seen from history, this does little to prevent others from behaving in similarly negative ways.

How's that been working out for us?
Sadly, crimes like this are still common, resulting in real tragedy for many.

Now let's look at RBE�

First, if technology is embraced to provide abundance for all, then desperation for the necessities of life disappears. Money becomes worthless because all of life's needs are taken care of, including access to goods as needed by simple requests.

Most crimes are property related. If there is no ownership and no restrictions and products have no value, then most crime disappears immediately. If you can get whatever you need, then there is virtually nothing to steal.

Second, it should be understood that people are not "born bad". People taking part in such aberrant behaviour are products of today's world. Children who grow up in troubled homes (where they don't receive love and encouragement and the basic necessities of life, or instead receive mental and/or physical abuse) are the ones who commit such abhorrent crimes. Today's society takes no responsibility for these troubled people it produces.

A RBE recognizes this and tries to change the systems so people are not subjected to such tragic upbringings. All the necessities of life as available. Parents are not stressed out trying to provide for their families and can actually spend time with their children, showing their love and teaching them respectable values. The result would be virtual elimination of abhorrent behaviour.

Would such repulsive actions eliminated completely? Nothing is perfect, and this is recognized. In a RBE, punishment is not the answer. When someone is found committing such atrocities, they are not punished. What is the point of punishment? Does punishment make us feel good? It shouldn't. It doesn't change the tragedy of the act that has taken place. If inflicting punishment makes people feel good, what does that say about the maturity of society?

Instead, this "bad" person could be taken to a comfortable place where they can be encouraged to talk with scientists to understand what went wrong. What took place in the life of this person to make them behave so badly? When the events that made the person behave badly can be identified, then society can change to try and make sure those events don't occur to someone else in the future. This is society accepting responsibility and learning from its mistakes. We don't need vengeance. We need to do our very best to make sure that others in the future don't behave in a similarly abhorrent manner.

I know this kind of thinking is radical for many, but don't just dismiss it. Instead, think critically about your beliefs. What can we truly do to prevent such tragedies in the future, and how can we learn from such experiences so that these lessons can be used to eliminate their occurrence even further?

Post 48

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 2:12am

Dean Michael Gores,

If a person is unable to trade for something they need, and no one is willing to donate or lend them the resources... then either they die, or you forcefully take resources from someone to give to the person in need.

This is an acceptable world for you? If the income earners in a family lose their jobs (as is common in recessions, for example) and cannot find sufficient charity, then you feel they should die in poverty or switch to a life of crime and bring tragedy to others? Including dependents, such as children and the elderly? Please let me know if I am understanding you correctly. It's hard to believe what I'm reading.

I'd prefer that the "needy who no one is willing to help" die over having wealth redistribution.

Wow. If you are sincere, Dean Michael Gores, then you are truly frightening me.

I'm not talking about "wealth redistribution". RBE is not about "wealth redistribution". RBE is about providing abundance for everyone.

By your reactions, I'm assuming you know/understand very little about a RBE, so I'll cover some of the basics...

You can keep whatever possessions you're clinging on to. Your home, your car, your guns, and whatever material shit you perceive has value. No one is going to take it from you. No one is going to knock on your door with guns. No one wants your stuff.

All of the "stuff" in your possession that you value is designed to fail. They are made with the cheapest materials and have just as short a useful life as today's society will tolerate before they break. They are not designed to be upgradable or recyclable. The wealth you are worried about "redistribution" is worthless.

Our current cities are all abandoned. By that I mean, whoever chooses to try and continue living in our inefficient and decrepit cities is free to continue doing so. The rest of us create new cities, designed with our best understandings and made with the highest quality materials. These new cities are systems-based and designed for efficiency to provide the goods and services everyone needs. Our current cities cannot be adapted, so they are worthless.

New products will be created using the highest quality materials available and will be designed for re-use, upgradeability, the longest useful life possible, and finally ease of recycling of the materials.

My last words to you (This conversation is going no where)

Giving up so easily? Obviously this conversation is not going where you think it should. I'm curious what direction you expected or what destination you thought you could reach in the exchange of two messages?

Yes, well, good luck giving everyone inalienable right of "access" to grass fed beef tenderloin, well built homes with scenic views, and to living humans (for transplants, sexual desires).

Wow. Dean Michael Gores, you continue to frighten me. You think of living humans as property that should be available for transplants and sexual desires?

Beef tenderloin is nice, but are you implying everyone wants it every day? Wow, that's a boring diet. I love a good rib-eye, slow braised short ribs, quick stir-fried flank, and aged NY striploin. You might be alone on that one.

You believe that well-built homes with scenic views are not possible for everyone? Why? Not only do we have the materials, technologies, and understandings to do so, but we can also customize your well-built home for your particular tastes.

Post 49

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 2:13am

Robert,

I'd cough it up with a .44 Magnum...

No need to get defensive. No one wants your possessions. See my reply to Dean above.

there were such communes in the 19th century - they all died

RBE is not a plan for a commune. RBE is a plan for sustainable management of the planet's resources. This is impossible in a commune. It doesn't matter how well a small group of people are capable of living when the planet around them is being raped of resources and polluted like a toilet.

Post 50

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 2:14am

Ed,

You gave a link to show how RBE is not the exact same as communism in detail, but it failed to show that it is not the exact same as communism in spirit and, more importantly, in outcome.

The failed outcomes the world witnessed was Stalinism and Leninism (Maoism is still hanging in there, although it is looking more like capitalism as time goes on).� No one has ever witnessed Marxism fail because "Marxism" as Karl Marx had envisioned was stateless and moneyless, and thus never existed.� The problem was how to get there in a sane and non-coercive fashion.� The first 3 didn't make it to the end goal because they got stuck on money and leadership. Plus, society wasn't ready (read: educated enough) to make the cognitive leap required.

Take the historical context of the time when Karl Marx was formulating his new ideas. The foundation of his thinking formed when human labour was pretty much all there was and society was divided into two pretty distinct and identifiable classes, workers and owners.� Owners exploited workers for their own benefit because they owned the means of production, but Karl Marx recognized that human labour was valuable and could be used as a means to wrest control from the owners.�

Of course with any best laid plan, time has the temerity of making good ideas irrelevant or unworkable.� In this case, it was unbridgeable.� The key component to Marx's transition was to channel the misery of the exploited downtrodden worker to fan the revolutionary fires.� This fizzled rather than exploded primarily because of two reasons:

1. Mechanical labour advanced faster than Marx had anticipated but this didn't displace labour as much as one would expect and it increased production significantly.� With excess inventories on the rise it made sense to owners to spread out the productivity gains to their workers so they would have the money necessary to buy the products produced.� It was win-win.

2.� Around this time was the widespread adoption of the corporate structure; the advent which introduced the concept of the shareholder.� This blurred the line between owner and worker as a worker could be both at once.

The increased standard of living through the more equitable distribution of productivity gains and the blurring of the classed leading to the obscuring of just who the "enemy" of the revolution was did not make for a fertile breeding ground for the workers of the world to unite.

So when communism finally did take "root" it was never because it was popular and it was most always through violent revolution of a minority of the population.

Today, TZM doesn't need any of that.� Capitalism is providing the automated infrastructure, as this is what it is "programmed" to do.� Reduce expenses at every corner, have capital chase the lowest cost of labour.� The tipping point will be reached when wages dip to a point relative to the inflating costs of goods and services at which human beings can work and still sustain themselves. At that point, machine labour is the only viable alternative for companies.�

Technological unemployment creates the misery, TZM offers the alternative.

Post 51

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 2:18am

Ed,

Do you think it would be okay if three-quarters of the world population died -- as long as the remaining quarter of the population practiced RBE?

Wow. Why would you ask a question like that? Who would be okay with that? Are you? TZM supporters certainly aren't (excluding crazy people who can claim they support whatever they want to claim they support).

A RBE is designed to provide abundance for everyone, and is capable of supporting larger world populations than we have today.

I don't see where you're going with questioning like this or what you're trying to imply.

Post 52

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 4:21am

So what we have discovered is:

1. RBE is pacifist. It treats ruthless murderers, rapists, and looters like reasonable people. RBE would let such criminals destroy an incredible amount of value, and not require the criminal to restore the value he destroyed to the owner (or to society since they don't like property).

2. RBE may not say so (since I haven't read it anywhere in RBE), but at least Brent Kyle has come clean that he is a socialist. He does believe that we should take from the productive by force to give to the needy. Then he takes a cheap shot at me, making it seem like since I let people starve that I'm a terrible murderer or something. Too bad for him we are already familiar with the concept of sanction of the victim.

3. Brent Kyle is frightened by my plain clear statement that yea, people die when no one helps them. But then we find that he is a hypocrite. He says "I love a good rib-eye, slow braised short ribs, quick stir-fried flank, and aged NY striploin." He enjoys such high luxury food items while there are starving children in Africa. If he really wasn't a hypocritical communist dictator, but at least a consistently caring for the needy person, then he would pay for things like cheap grain foods to be sent/grown in Africa instead of eating food from higher in the food chain.

4. RBE/TZM is communism with the fantasy that: "With technology, we can provide for everyone's needs!"
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/07, 4:32am)

Post 53

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 5:14am

RBE is a plan for sustainable management of the planet's resources. This is impossible in a commune. It doesn't matter how well a small group of people are capable of living when the planet around them is being raped of resources and polluted like a toilet.

There we go: forced association. The emperor wannabees expose the inevitable.

"The planet." Not a commune. And the ironic use of the word 'rape,' as if in the context of establishing a 'planetwide commune of forced association' there wasn't plenty of 'rape' unvolved.

Clearly exposes why these existentially terrifed little curmudgeons recoils in horror at the words 'freedom', 'individual rights', and 'liberty', or try to twist them around as if we were all barely focused Janis Joplin.

When the first free person looks at your video and says "No, thank you," then do you resort to the 'but six Soc. Profs told us how great this idea was?"

Before marching off to war(exactly what it would take) to send the entire planet down the tubes, show us the very first example of a commune 'living well' under this flawed paradigm. If it is such a fantastically superior idea, it will willingly convince billions, who will voluntary want to submit themselves to the benefits.

So, all we need to do is sit back, watch all the RBE goodness unfold, and it will sweep 'the planet' with its superior paradigm. Can't wait to see it.

"The planet." Germania, remarketed with this generation's puddingheads.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 3/07, 5:19am)

Post 54

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 5:29am

Progress away from a state of freedom is not progress.(credit Robert Malcom, if I remember correctly...)

If 'the thinking of the past'-- 'freedom is great idea and a proper goal for this political context' simply because of the turning of the calendar must now be replaced with "freedom is a terrible idea, and we should pursue a massive forced associat ion based on totalitarian ideas', then that is not progress. It is decay.

A movement towards any totalitarianism based on forced association is just the latest in line with the totalitarians of the 20th century. And to the extent that America has become corrupted with totalitarian thinking, we should be purging our political context of those infections, not encouraging them.

That is not to say that things just like Marxism or the latest necessary endless remarketing/repackaging of the same flawed concepts, shouldn't be freely studied in America.

They should. Just like cancer is. With the hope for a someday cure.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 3/07, 5:57am)

Post 55

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 5:49am

Examine the totalitarians of last century, their motivations.

What utopic things came out of their mouths on the way to their planetwide utopias?

In Mein Kampf, Hitler kept referring to the hunger of his youth. Irrational existential terror, embedded in his brain. Scratch a totalitarian, and you find a terrified child, screaming irrationally at the dark, reason out the window.

Willing to sell out freedom in a heartbeat, as long as it means another day crawling over the bodies of whoever necessary to last another day in this always in danger of sinking lifeboat.

Got to make this lifeboat 'sustainable' -- by tying the carcasses of whatever unwilling victims we deem necessary to the gunwales, to keep us afloat.

Like the movie 'Cube', from the late 90's. These folks see the universe as a malevolent place, just filled with stuff that is just going to eventually kill us all in the end. In an incomprehensible(to them)universe, they find themselves increasingly dependent on the mathematics of others, a mathematics they barely comprehend.

And, just like in that fringe, cult movie, the real challenge wasn't a malevolent universe with cold rules of survival. The real challenge was the irrationality running loose in our tribe. "You have to save yourselves from yourselves."

This irrational existential terror is unbearable to many.

In fact, it is 'unsustainable.' A dead giveaway a tell.

And in the political equivalent of 'crime is easier than calculus', proposing sloppy utopic scenarios that start out with 'everything you need will be provided for you' and end up with 'and everything you want, too', some wish for the world of their childhood, when Barney the dinosaur sung to them about magical rainstorms, candy canes and gumdrops just falling from the sky with their mouths open wide, and oh what a world that would be.

Surely easier than comprehending the universe and modernity. Why no, although we once thought that science& engineering curriculum looked doable, turns out they are real ball busters after all, so screw it, this 'soft science' stuff -- where folks decide the fate of 'the planet' -- sure does provide a much softer landing, as well as much more bang for the ball busting buck.

See, some were born to run up the hills that this universe coldly provides for us, and others were born to be carried up the hill.

Some get it. And long have.

Post 56

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 8:11am

This idea is so ludicrous on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. So I will just suggest a few things:

1 - The technology advances you speak about do not come ex nihilo. They require private property rights and the rule of law or they won't happen. Humanity had many thousands of years of little progress and under this system the same would happen.

2 - Theoretically this could work if, like in John Ringo's Council War series we had a world wide computer and unlimited resources. However, in the absence of that, it cannot even come close to working.

3 - No one will work and build anything because why should they? If they are not coerced, why bother? Let someone else run the factory. I will draw or sing or play videos or take drugs or whatever else is fun for me. If these factories could just spring up on their own, they would - but they do NOT. This is like believing in Santa.

4 - Crimes of violence often have little to do with property. So you ask me to go see the friendly scientists and now I torture them all to death, now what? Since no one does anything, I will take my gang with guns and we will set up our own palace with concubines from anyone we can grab - awesome, thanks for the free stuff! Back to warlords - where are they? Oh in anarchist nations like Somalia.

Post 57

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 8:47am

Brent,

I understand some people have a short attention span, and 20 minutes of critical thinking is too long. Let me give you the summary�

Imagine you went back in time to even just a few hundred years ago. You met up with people from that time and explained to them what your life is like:

(1) Clean drinking water and hot water available on demand for everyone.

(2) Controlled refrigeration so food stays fresh for days.

(3) Personal freezers so food can last for months.

(4) Electricity powering lights and heaters.

(5) Fast land transportation (via automobiles) that doesn't get tired, injured, or sick.

(6) Air transportation to travel across the continent in hours!

And so on. Try to explain these things we take for granted to a person who lived just a few hundred years ago. What would they say? "Impossible! It's utopian!"

Of course it's not. It's just humanity using their growing understanding of the world and taking advantage of technological advancements.

But you could use a bigger dose of critical thinking, yourself. You want to simultaneously do away with the primary driver of, if not the invention, at least the spread, of all of these advancements (the profit motive), while just assuming that the advancements will continue on indefinitely -- because men will become like angels, all working together and working things out, without a clear process but with a fuzzy, hazy, feel-good pseudo-process which you describe as "humanity taking advantage."

Ed

Post 58

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 8:52am

Brent,

Most crimes are property related. If there is no ownership and no restrictions and products have no value, then most crime disappears immediately. If you can get whatever you need, then there is virtually nothing to steal.

Are you aware of the "Belmont 125" (I think that's right, it's from Larry Elder's book: 10 Things You Can't Say in America)? It's where a rich philanthropist "adopted " 125 poor, disadvantaged children and gave them money for "whatever they needed."

They grew up and ended up with a higher-than-average crime rate.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/07, 11:16am)

Post 59

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 10:43am