I wonder how Molyneux would respond to the twin studies that showed one pair of separated twins, one becoming an ardent Nazi and the other an Orthodox Jew. That's become a common theme in psychology textbooks to illustrate the principle that our behaviors are both genetically determined and biologically determined (the two shared many traits and also suggested similar characteristics with regard to adopting radical stances).
There is a gene for Nazism and a gene for Orthodox Judaism?
News to me.
I think it's learned behavior, one has to also study the environment they grew up in.
I think he was suggesting the possiblity of a genetic predispostion towards "radicalism".
I'm not familiar with the study, but my first thought is that basing any real conclusions off of odd situations, in this case a singular odd situation, is folly. Nevertheless, you could still look into the types of parenting and life experiences the twins had that could offer further insight instead of jumping directly to genetic predispotions.
I'm thinking genes+family background=personality. Not sure though, although I think to ignore the family background and blame it all on the genes is not a good idea.
Right, I was only saying the consensus suggests that this is common in twin studies, and the Jew/Nazi is the highlighted example. The environment will shape people's attitudes about the specifics, but the genes may have a large say in determining how sentimental, radical, compassionate, etc. the person is (their personality). At least that's what those in the know say.
They both liked dunking donuts in coffee if I remember correctly.
If you really want to have fun with them, ask them how they would decide what is the "best" of any good they want to produce. All of Peter Joseph's nonsense is based on believing that capitalism due to the "cost efficiency mechanism" can never produce anything but cheap junk that breaks. In his economic system only the "best" would be produced utiltilzing the "best" technology can produce using "science". It is all vague generalities based on his subjective opinion. As an example (cars),
Believer: "...you base the product on overall utility and efficiency. Dont want gps ? dont use it! dont want cup holders dont use them! you arent being charged extra for extra ulitlity, longevity, safety efficency etc. than why not just make it top notch on all those levels?"
Me: "How would the overall utility and efficiency determined? A car that weighs 1 pound would be very efficient but not very safe. Why is this better than what the consumer wants? Right now the market is providing the automobiles people are demanding. If they did not want cup holders an automaker would make a car without them. Unfortunately for your example these are in great demand. If they don't want GPS, these would be an option (in many case they are)."
Believer: "well we are still discussing this within the confines of this system, first of all there are ways to improve the safety of a car without comramising efficency, sure there are balances that must be arrived at, one needs to calculate what a car must way in order to not get overturned in a gust of wind or by a passing truck or. However some choices people make are based out of a lack of knowledge. if all cars were free who would choose one that is not safe or not efficent?"
Me: "But we are not choosing anymore because you said the cars are not being built based on consumer demand."
He then changes the subject. Their whole arguments are illogical and naive. Just keep asking them how they would determined the "best" of anything, it is a catch 22 for them.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
If you really want to have fun with them, ask them how they would decide what is the "best" of any good they want to produce. All of Peter Joseph's nonsense is based on believing that capitalism due to the "cost efficiency mechanism" can never produce anything but cheap junk that breaks. In his economic system only the "best" would be produced utiltilzing the "best" technology can produce using "science".
They got it exactly backwards. Capitalism is efficient precisely because private business use the cheapest materials available. Using the best resources for everything would be a big waste. Sure, it wouldn't break that quickly, but we'd have so much less of everything.
This whole Zeitgeist movement is new to me and frankly quite sad. I just finished watching all their video's. I got into a few discussions with them as well that were both hilarious and disturbing. When I pinned them down, they admitted that there are many inexpensive and highly durable goods sold on the market that last for many years, their angst is aimed squrely at consumer electronics and automobiles.
It's really nothing more than communism with a super computer, but they get very testy when this is pointed out. Although they are unable to explain how it isn't.
Before Peter Joseph wants everyone to subjugate themselves to the computer, surely the computer is directing Peter's life right now, so he can show how great it's working? It must be great not having to work, or at the very minimum do everything super efficiently.
Debating these guys seems as futile as debating people on their religious views (no offense to religious people). They're unswayed by logic and are so convinced that they're right that they seem to quickly take offense any time someone dares interrupt their sermons with any kind of reasonable objection. And ironically, they're the first to label anyone who disagrees with their ideas as "brainwashed".
I'm not sure if arguing with them serves any purpose. They only seem to be interested in spreading their word and have blinders on to any counterarguments, no matter how devastating.
Like I said before, I don't know if it's so much arguing with THEM, but rather just exposing the flaws in thier plans publicly. I've had a few people mention the films in passing. Kind of like exposing Scientology, although admittedly Zietgiest isn't THAT ridiculous. The Venus Project might seem plausible to your average layman who doesn't know much about economics, computer science, etc. It's something that SOUNDS good to the average joe, but doesn't work in reality, kind of like Marxism.
I, too, think it's a good idea to expose the flaws in their movement. If you go to sites like 4chan, you'll see that many, many young people are interested in it. I've never really listened to Stefan prior to seeing this video, but I do like how he brings up how it's nothing new and that the Austrians have already laid out the defeating arguments long ago.
I was pushed towards libertarian sources through watching Zeitgeist. These people are just looking for answers and there are well over ten million of them. Don't give up on converting the Zeitgeist crowd. Its a win-win situation because even if Peter Joseph refuses to argue, his supporters will be forced to think and reevaluate their position
FYI, Looks like Stefan will be doing an interview with V-Radio, an internet radio show focused on discussing the Venus Project and all that jazz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio/2011/02/07/stefan-molyneux-of-freedomain-radio-interview
From the looks of that, he has a full hour. Should be interesting and give him plenty of time to directly respond, and hopefully elaborate.
"Don't give up on converting the Zeitgeist crowd."
I agree with Kenneth here. I think it's easier to convert those to libertarianism who already hold radical views. Just keep blasting them with economics - an above poster for example showed how they're benefiting from division of labor right this very second. Even asking "who will do the shitty jobs in the VP paradise" runs them into a corner. Talking about money forming out of the difficulties of barter seems to take the emotion out of "money is the root of all evil," which most people (not only these commies) seem to accept.
Most people I know that are hard to talk with are the "middle-grounders." They reject outright communism and laissez-faire for the same reason- because they're too "extreme" and thats it. I guarantee every time you see these Venus Project guys squirm and avoid your points you have given them something to think on, and down the road they and others reading these arguments might just start looking into the ideas of liberty.
^Very true. If you talked to me 6-7 years ago, I was a Truther and a socialist
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I third the notion that they are radicals in search of answers. They are fertile ground. All they need is be shown clear to a few basic economic realities. I, Pencil them.
Why anarchy fails
You know what lol, I'm not even gonna bother with these people anymore.
Peter Joseph think Economics is not a science. I've been reading some weird things online and I'm slowly accepting that some people are delusional. Now I understand why Ayn Rand didn't enjoy debating people.
Are the zeitgeisters still truthers, or did they tone that down in the latest movie?
I agree. The Zeitgeist Movement needs to be addressed. I see enthusiastic support for it exploding on popular internet forums. The Zeitgeist movies appeal to kids because they have been trained by twelve years of government school indoctrination to be emotional and anti-intellectual, not rational.
The somewhat valid criticisms of our current system in the Zeitgeist 3 movie fire them up so vigorously that they start promoting the "Resource-Based Economy" with religious ferver without bothering to critically examine it.
It scares me.
Actually, there's really no arguing with them. I didn't know they were "truthers".
Nonetheless, they're very, dogmatic.. I think. Not sure if it's the right word to describe them..
Peter Joseph is a very weird character. He becomes very emotional and he pretty much hates every aspect of life.
I've listened to his interview where he states that : " the society we live in is a CONSUMER society, we consume with disregard to nature. In Anthropology, we learn that people only took what they needed from nature and lived modest lifes"" People think economics is not a science, it's not, you see vast complicated equations and all that. But it's not really a science. I've read most of they're works."
We must live in desperate times, I've been searching some things online and people believe all sorts of silly things.
Did you knwo that there's millions of people who follow conspiracy theories and all that. Some actually believe the world is ruled by reptilians, and some wear tin foil hats. I thought this was a joke, yet they really believe in this...LOL!!!
The problem is that the "movement" presents itself as rational, scientific and modern, with revolutionary and entirely novel ideas about how society "really operates," and how it should operate. Peter Joseph's revelations can't be invalidated by the logic of economics, which is, after all, just "a tool of the oppressive monetary system." This makes rational discourse impossible.
But if you look at the structure of Zeitgeist 1 you'll see that he's actually quite brilliant. The first part (introduction), which was merely an attack on religion, gave him instant credibility amongst 20 year-old pseudo intellectuals (many of which are hardcore militant atheists).
His arguments were similar to Marx's in many respects (product of the superstructure, the opiate of the masses, etc), but it went even further. He didn't just argue that God wasn't real (the old and boring argument), but rather that Jesus wasn't real (not that he wasn't the son of God, but rather that he never existed at all). Part 2 and part 3 didn't really matter at that point; he could have said anything and people would have followed (part 2 just plagiarizes "Loose Change," and part 3 is just Utopian Socialism).
I'm quite sure that the Zeitgeist "movement" would be much smaller today, if it existed at all, if it wasn't for the spurious argument made in part 1. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see how a 28 year-old college dropout/musician can get millions of people to follow him. He should have went into politics.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I have seen the original Zeitgeist and I actually think most on the Mises boards would agree with their portrayal of the founding of the Federal Reserve. Even though absoultey nothing was sourced, there wasn't any outlandish instance of misinformation that I can recall. Their segments on the NWO, 9/11 Truth, and the plagarism of the Christian religion I don't think are accurate at all.
Once again, it's not really about arguing with the hardcore zealots, but rather just adressing their claims in an open forum. I've been scanning thier forums and Stefans two videos, which at best touch on the criticisms in a cursory manner (ie. not delving into explaining the whole ECP), already had a few of them doubting. You won't change the fundies, but you'll keep the fundies from getting any followers. Plus we might convert a few, considering that, despite the utopian futurism and lack of sound economics, the Zietgiesters do share some goals with austro-libertarians. Show them we're they're going wrong, and congratulate them when they're going right.
I don't quite remember Part 1 of the first Zeitgeist movie, but I do know that the comparisons made between Jesus and Christianity to other religions were pretty solid, and takes the "this is an original religion" aspect away from Christianity.
If there were blatantly false claims made, I don't remember them. I'm also not going to watch that awful movie again lol.
but I do know that the comparisons made between Jesus and Christianity to other religions were pretty solid
Not even close to solid. The comparisons between Jesus and pagan deities are spurious, at best.
All the other comparisons are just as ridiculous. Additionally, that part of the documentary cites 5 different sources, but merely repeats the sources multiple times in order to make it seem more credible/authoritative.
Esuric: Not even close to solid. The comparisons between Jesus and pagan deities are spurious, at best. Mithra is made of stone, has 1000 ears, 1000 eyes, and lives in a cave. He is protector of cattle, wide pastures, and the guardian of water. Horus is the god of war and hunting who takes the form of a falcon, and was said to be the sky. The sun is his right eye and the moon is his left eye. "Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[5][6] and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus." All the other comparisons are just as ridiculous. Additionally, that part of the documentary cites 5 different sources, but merely repeats the sources multiple times in order to make it seem more credible/authoritative.
Wasn't Mithra born on Dec. 25th, had 12 followers (apostles?), performed miracles, etc? I think there are similar parallels between Horus and Jesus as well, though I don't remember them.
I don't recall if such comparisons were made in the movie, so maybe I was mistaken in attributing them to it.
These are the claims made in the movie but I've never seen them substantiated.
But first of all, Jesus was not born on December 25th.This was something created by the church around the 5th century in order to appeal to the pagan populations. Next,why would a falcon and a stone monster, which lives in a cave, have 12 apostles? Either way, there's no evidence supporting such assertions.
Peter Joeseph is basically a liar in every way.
Check this website out: http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/mithra.html
I had to turn off Religulous when Bill Marr cited the Horus story as being another Jesus. Pure rubbish.
Esuric: but I do know that the comparisons made between Jesus and Christianity to other religions were pretty solid Not even close to solid. The comparisons between Jesus and pagan deities are spurious, at best. Mithra is made of stone, has 1000 ears, 1000 eyes, and lives in a cave. He is protector of cattle, wide pastures, and the guardian of water. Horus is the god of war and hunting who takes the form of a falcon, and was said to be the sky. The sun is his right eye and the moon is his left eye. "Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[5][6] and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus." All the other comparisons are just as ridiculous. Additionally, that part of the documentary cites 5 different sources, but merely repeats the sources multiple times in order to make it seem more credible/authoritative.
It's quite brilliant numerology, actually. You take a bunch of facts about two unrelated events/objects/people and comb through them, and just by coincidence there will be a bunch of them that match. Then you only mention those in a row, and add a little bs and a story that explains why they are "connected", and it will seem utterly convincing that it's "too much to be coincidence". That's what the first zeitgeist movie does with Christianity to show that it's metaphysized astronomy. It's like the Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences thing. The trick is that while it is unlikely that a particular fact about an event/object/person is the same as that of another unrelated one, it is actually very likely that some of the facts about them are the same. You can try this at home. You just take a few facts about your life (birthday, fathers employment, etc.) and compare them to the facts of Ludwig van Mises' life. And as long as you have enough data, there's going to be a bunch of them that match. Then you only mention those, and the conclusion is clear: You and Ludwig van Mises are magic soulmates! Once you mention all the facts that aren't the same, it becomes less astounding. So the Zeitgeist movie merely exploits a statistical trick.
It's the same thing with the "Bible Code." You can get similar results using the same criteria for Moby Dick.
Speaking of that (off-topic), the History Channel is absolutely ridiculous now. Especially their most recent fetish--the Ancient Astronaut theory.
Here is the next episodein the debate between Stefan Molyneux and the Venus Project people.
I stopped listening after the kid said that poor people live happier lives relative to wealthy people, and that capitalism can't work because we have finite resources.
Eric080: It's the same thing with the "Bible Code." You can get similar results using the same criteria for Moby Dick. Speaking of that (off-topic), the History Channel is absolutely ridiculous now. Especially their most recent fetish--the Ancient Astronaut theory.
waaaat are you serious? They went so low into such myths even? Wow. They really are cahsing for ratings only...
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Indeed, the History Channel is run by a bunch of sellouts. This is just one episode, I think they've got a whole series devoted to this:
I can't bring myself to watch the video. Does molyneux do well? Do they troll/abuse him? :'(
Ahh I did watch it. "Efficiency is not subjective it is scientific"
[edit1] Gaaawd its so long and Molyneux is a good speaker, has good knowledge of mainstream AE, but a mediocre debater. Really. Come on our guys...
Step 1) Reduce their silly lefty objection into its purest form. For example, when someone asks walter block what will happen to poor people under private roads, that isn't a direct objection to private roads. It falls under a general need for wealth redistribution. So tell them that. Tell them what they're arguing and what they're thinking, cus they don't have a clue. Otherwise they'll think that wealth redistro arguments disprove price-allocation of capital. Step 2) If it is non-topical, tell them to get to it later so you don't get thrown off course. If it is not non-topical, address their argument in its GENERAL FORM so you don't keep coming back to the same issue over and over again. Step 3) When you are done explaining it, make sure you have a little QED line so they don't get caught up in all the little logical steps you used to own them.
Sieben:I can't bring myself to watch the video. Does molyneux do well? Do they troll/abuse him? :'(
Well, you've watched it now, so I guess this doesn't matter. But I thought both sides did pretty well respect-wise. I think Molyneux won the debate, but there wasn't any trolling or abuse, which was good to see. I don't think I would be able to say the same if it was Molyneux vs. Peter Joseph.