http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaP2GJvZlWY&feature=player_embedded#t=0 (Sorry for the video freezes and end cut off!) Note from Peter Joseph: "I would like to say I value Mr. Molyneux's perspective with respect to the outcomes he intends with his notion of a "Free-Society." His intelligence and ambition is wonderful. However, during the course of our interview I was deeply disappointed with his perpetual ignoring of the central themes put forward with respect the underlying causal nature of the market, its inherent limitations and structural consequences. I will also say that it bothers me deeply how such antiquated market ideas are still ever popular and, again, while I respect his intents, he persist as very much a part of the problem, not the solution when it comes to the serious public health and ecological problems facing the world today, sourced in a distorted value system reinforced by the dominant and outdated ethos of market capitalism in all forms. Perhaps a further conversation can be put forward as I didn't get to touch upon 60% of what I wanted to. Many thanks for Stefan's time! " ~Peter
It would of been nice if Peter didnt have such a condescending attitude to almost everything Stefan said, and made an attempt to at least look like he has listening. He also doesnt understand the difference between a free market, and state intervention. He sees state intervention into the market just simply as an extension of the free market, which doesnt make any sense, seeing as you take the voluntary market, and introduce involuntary actions, thus its not a free market. He says that besides this, the market is wrong anyway, because it creates "structural violence" as he calls it, which is basically inequality economically, which leads to the unnecessary loss of life. Competition creates winners and losers, and thus people die, which is honestly an over exaggeration. Many people try to get into the best colleges, however only the best are picked. That doesnt mean that others are just left to dry. No, they find other places to pursue their education, or strive to work their hardest to get into those top places. Many people try to get the best jobs, but only the most qualified get those jobs. So then the "losers" find other jobs, find other ways to create economic productivity. Its ironic because Peter understands how the state intervening into the market causes this inequality and loss of life that he talks about, except he just doesnt care. The market is the problem, competition is the problem, not a monopoly of force known as government. Peter also debates very sophistly, and Stefan calls him out on it multiple times, but thats where the attitude comes back in. I mean LOL, just look at the little disclaimer PJ but on this video and you will see exactly what I'm talking about. All in all, it would be interesting to see if they make another video, since both parties seemed to have more they wanted to say.
Peter strikes me as a technocrat. IMO he seems like he thinks he is smarter then everyone there for he knows better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4_u7veGPA0 Dude keeps it classy, I'd really like to see him slap the piss out of Rogan. Start around 2 minutes.
Regardless of how Peter sounds, he does have valid points. The money system is obsolete and the bestsolution for all our humans is to create a resource based economy . I wouldn't even mind if the government implemented this system. As this system does greatly benifit them.
I don't think the government really wants a resource economy. The politicians with authority and power, in the form of weapons and police, I assume, are all propped into positions of power by the biggest proponents of waste and environmental destruction on the planet. Their support from the populations they lord over also comes from their promises to fix social problems. If we lived in a society that was responsible and solving it's own problems rather than propagating and ignoring them, politicians wouldn't have any rhetoric, therefor no soapbox from which to stand on and preach when trying to get into office. The changes are coming from activists outside or at the lowest rungs of the system, rather than the government itself. The only promise for environmental mindfulness coming from within our modern technological society that I see is in the form of small tight-knit communities committed to sustainability and innovators in the renewable resource and eco-tech world. The government is already running it's own resource society, which is a total perversion of a sustainable one, which will only come in the form of voluntary cooperation between human beings, the physical limitations of the planet, and an empathetic vision for the future. However, I agree with you that capitalism is very much at the center of the problem. The government only helps it, though, to inflict us with the impossible lifestyle expectations that it is perpetuating through its own propaganda. To the government, which is essentially it's own corporation with a military, is more invested in the rights of the criminals mentioned above. Government regulations have done almost nothing to limit the endless freedom that capitalists give themselves to amount to as much material waste as they want, or to inhumanely objectify human beings, disregarding the dignity of workers, while elevating those privileged to be born into wealth to a type of royalty status. An resource based egalitarian society, which is what I am assuming you are pushing for here, will never emerge without smashing these habits, which much of the government is invested in conserving.
There will always be scarcity, and therefore, will always be a need to allocate resources. Do you have a better idea than money?
Well,, there are methods of creating an abundant of foods that can feed the worlds populations with out the need for money . If anything, the houses that in which you live in will have self sustaining edible gardens. Maybe even plant more veggie and fruit type trees around cities,parks, and in the wilderness. Its not going to be like ,, "O mr and mrs john doe, you get this amount for the month and all the other 7billion gets this amount" with todays technology every house could have clean free running water, clean free energy and healthy bellies with out the need for a money system. Basically, just get rid of the negative equation and then apply a just do it type answer. Of course in confines of peace, and unity.
That's all well and fine if possible (though, I believe the more food you create, the more people will reproduce, and it will always be a never ending proliferation between the two), but you didn't answer the question. Because, there will always be a need for human (or human like) labor, there will always be scarcity and a need to allocate resources. Do you have a better method than money?
nothing wrong with either.. i just think the guy should maybe stick to debating art and music if those are his fields of expertise.