Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Wednesday April 23rd, 2014: No Call In Show

Thursday and Friday April 24-25th, 2014: The Next Web Conference in Amsterdam

Friday April 25th, 2014: Watch Stefan's Speech LIVE at 9:20am Eastern

Saturday April 26th, 2014: Freedomain Radio Meet-Up in Amsterdam

Sunday April 27th, 2014: No Call In Show


56 Philosopher King files - 71 Gold files - 40 Silver files - 50 Bronze files


Update: A new silver level file on Toxic Guilt and The Credibility Bank Account has been added! Click here to donate if you'd like access to the various premium sections. If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Photo

Peter Joseph is not happy with Stef

Peter Joseph Zeitgeist

  • Please log in to reply
290 replies to this topic

#1
Rayne

Rayne

  • 33 posts
He's somewhat apologetic in the first one and pissed in the second one.




  • 0

#2
jonagelle

jonagelle
  • 10 posts

I could be happy with Stef if you talk more often. Share stories, the interesting one. These events are important part of life. To let your partner know it is as well important. You need to have more passion to each other. Share anything to her on anything that you could think of. You can share stories, foods, etc. Laugh with her. There must be love between the two of you. You place yourself where you could be comfortable when you are with her. And place yourself where she could be comfortable with you. Be a loving partner. Hang out, visit some restaurants together, give her flowers, then you might spice up your relationship. You must think of a way on how to make her feel love.

 

Nathanael King is a Clinical Hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and weight loss & nutritional therapist. He also helps people suffering from panic attacks or social anxiety. He has written a book on how to build confidence instantly using NLP techniques. Please download from http://dailyimproves...confidencefree/. You can also sign up for weekly newsletter at for life changing strategies life, health and wealth at http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk.


  • -6

#3
jimmo100

jimmo100
  • 5 posts

If you don't/won't/can't see a distinction between voluntarism and coersion... that is a bit of a sticking-point in any debate about the market.
 


  • 0

#4
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator


  • 1232 posts

Hmmm. Interesting false dichotomy. He tells how someone else is destructive and manipulative and then manipulates his audience by providing two destructive names as the only options to label someone else. Not the most consistent.

 

I have a feeling that he really didn't like being psychologized. That was the part he didn't address in the video to his audience. I think that was when he took it really personally and wanted to rage out against Stefan.


  • 4

#5
Lians

Lians

  • 392 posts

What better way to validate Stef's theory (the one he laid out at the end of his analysis of the debate) than to lash out in an emotional rant. It's sadly predictable.


  • 6

#6
Rayne

Rayne

  • 33 posts

I have a feeling that he really didn't like being psychologized. That was the part he didn't address in the video to his audience. I think that was when he took it really personally and wanted to rage out against Stefan.

 

Agreed.  I found it curious that he left that part out.  I wonder how many of his followers will watch Stef's entire analysis.  I hope that those who do will listen with an open mind.  Peter Joseph certainly poisoned the well with his rebuttal.  In his defense, though, Stef was a bit harsh and no one wants to be called a child.


  • 2

#7
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator


  • 1232 posts

Controversy always brings in some people. Some percentage of those people will realize that Stef is right and will stay. My guess is that this was part of the underlying motivation.

 

As Lians said, it is pretty expected that this would be PJ's response based on Stef's theory. Thus pointing out to his audience some of these debate and psychology points while creating controversy to pull in a few more Zeitgeisters.

 

Also, I am pretty sure that another debate would not be productive at all, so offending PJ a bit doesn't really lose you anything.


  • 3

#8
Rayne

Rayne

  • 33 posts

At the end of Stef's rebuttal he says that if TZM is such a great idea then they should go and just set up shop somewhere and do all the great things they talk about.  "If you build it, they will come" right?  I wonder if Peter Joseph heard that.  

 

Jacque Fresco cut off ties with Peter Joseph shortly after the 3rd Zeitgeist movie because The Venus Project was already off doing that and Peter Joseph did not share the vision.  They have property in Venus, Florida where they demonstrate their ideas and try to show how life might look in the future.  Here's an interesting interview with Jacque Fresco.  The guys interviewing him lean towards TZM but if you listen to Jacque you can tell that he knew that The Venus Project was not something to be forced on people:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=retxWac-6Z8


  • 1

#9
Josh F

Josh F

    Thought Terrorist


  • 766 posts

Feeling like the last debate didn't have enough nonarguments, here is a whole new video with more! 


  • 0

#10
Rayne

Rayne

  • 33 posts

Feeling like the last debate didn't have enough nonarguments, here is a whole new video with more! 

 

I think Jacque Fresco tries to communicate through stories and he relies a lot on inference.  Every video I've watched of him he tries to get his point across through anecdotal evidence.  He's not the best communicator but I don't believe that he comes from a totalitarian viewpoint.  Also, he's almost 100 years old in this video and his mind may not be what it once was.


  • 0

#11
travioli

travioli

  • 31 posts

I had a feeling this anger response thing would happen...the debate says it all on who had the better ideas, I think. "Violence, voluntarism...Too narrow of abstractions that can't be applied"? That's how he discounts voluntarism vs. coercion and his equivocation of competition with exploitation? That's quite a clever way to destroy this essential distinction. It's good to "know the enemy" though.

Interesting.


  • 0

#12
powder

powder

  • 105 posts

I have to finish listening to Stef's review video and the second rant video by PJ but I have to say, I am starting to agree with PJ.  He makes a good point about the silly Ferrari discussion, I would be embarrassed if I were in Stef's place if I had done that.  

 

I really wish Stef would focus more on PJ foundational arguments, they seem so easy to debunk - but instead PJ carries on driving his point home about structural violence and the competitive nature of the market being the root cause of the state and everything else bad with the world...


  • 0

#13
Alex B

Alex B

  • 10 posts

I think Stef nailed it at the end of his analysis with the theory on the collectivist ideologies attempting to create the ideal childhood they were denied and blaming the system their abusers were in rather than the abusers themselves. It didn't surprise me that Peter neglected to comment on it. I think the overt aggressive nature of Peter's reaction video could have a residual effect in discouraging his audience to watch up to that point of the video as it was very near the end. But even if a single person stops supporting the abuse of children as a result of Stef's arguments through all of this, it's an immeasurable victory in my view.


  • 0

“Everyone carries a part of society on
his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by
others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is
sweeping toward destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests,
must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can
stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on the
result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great
historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has
plunged us.” ― Ludwig Von Mises


#14
kalmia

kalmia
  • 255 posts

...

 

I have a feeling that he really didn't like being psychologized. That was the part he didn't address in the video to his audience. I think that was when he took it really personally and wanted to rage out against Stefan.

 

 

Agreed.  I found it curious that he left that part out.  I wonder how many of his followers will watch Stef's entire analysis.  I hope that those who do will listen with an open mind.  Peter Joseph certainly poisoned the well with his rebuttal.  In his defense, though, Stef was a bit harsh and no one wants to be called a child.

 

Yup, I think that is evidence that the Zeitgesiter's avoidance of processing childhood really is the key holding the whole thing together. If they examine their childhoods, a lot will begin to unravel. He is now using anger to avoid that. We can hope that it will come together for some of them one day after sitting alone and taking a nice big toke on their bongs. Duuude..adults were assholes growing up...this zeitgeist stuff is bullshit...whoa!


  • 0

"I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream." - Terence McKenna


#15
Magnus

Magnus

    Subversive

  • 807 posts
The only two concrete examples Peter Joseph bothers to drop are (1) the thing about the Ferrari not being sufficiently environmental, and (2) the parable of the starving family next door to the family that's "hoarding" food.

These are just your garden variety socialist platitudes. The Ferrari complaint is based on some vague notion of property -- the use of natural resources that other people have an allegedly superior claim to, and pollutants that interfere with other people's lives.

But then his starving family parable rejects the principle of property. The hoarders can't keep their food. They have some ill-defined obligation to give it away. The parable says nothing of how the food came into existence, or why one group has food and the other doesn't. Nor does it address how to solve the problem systemically -- across millions of people and the span of years.

It's all just the usual socialist claptrap -- enviro-communism and how the Lefties care so much that they'll feed the poor with their abundant compassion, while the stingy capitalists would let them starve.

The only remotely novel components he adds to the mix are his Star Trek Mystic Guru outfits and the indiscriminate use of 5-cent words like "reductionist."
  • 3

"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime."


-- Max Stirner


#16
kalmia

kalmia
  • 255 posts

CoHERcion.


I think Jacque Fresco tries to communicate through stories and he relies a lot on inference.  Every video I've watched of him he tries to get his point across through anecdotal evidence.  He's not the best communicator but I don't believe that he comes from a totalitarian viewpoint.  Also, he's almost 100 years old in this video and his mind may not be what it once was.

 

I've watched a bit of his videos, and one thing that really bugs me about him is his whole "In the future cities will ...." It's the obvious hubris of a wanna be central planner.


  • 0

"I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream." - Terence McKenna


#17
Guest_darkskyabove_*

Guest_darkskyabove_*

I really wish Stef would focus more on PJ foundational arguments, they seem so easy to debunk - but instead PJ carries on driving his point home about structural violence and the competitive nature of the market being the root cause of the state and everything else bad with the world...

 

What arguments did Mr. Joseph present? What I heard were a laundry list of complaints. ( I will settle for Stefan's post-debate analysis, though I would be far from his level of diplomacy!) Complaining is not arguing. And complaining about current and historical issues to someone who advocates a "new" idea, is a straw man, at best, and a severe case of whining, at worst. What "foundational" arguments was Stefan supposed to focus on? Every one of Mr. Joseph's complaints is aimed at the current system, which has been debunked through the lineage of Paine-Spooner-Rothbard, and many in between. This is not some new topic, with the obligatory "shocked and amazed" phase. Stefan's position is corroborated by over a century (if not more...) of analysis by some very brilliant people. Now comes Mr. Joseph, who claims: that's not enough. Fact is, he doesn't, really, claim much of anything.

 

The only two concrete examples Peter Joseph bothers to drop are (1) the thing about the Ferrari not being sufficiently environmental, and (2) the parable of the starving family next door to the family that's "hoarding" food.

These are just your garden variety socialist platitudes. The Ferrari complaint is based on some vague notion of property -- the use of natural resources that other people have an allegedly superior claim to, and pollutants that interfere with other people's lives.

But then his starving family parable rejects the principle of property. The hoarders can't keep their food. They have some ill-defined obligation to give it away. The parable says nothing of how the food came into existence, or why one group has food and the other doesn't. Nor does it address how to solve the problem systemically -- across millions of people and the span of years.

 

Though you've dissected this part well, I would add: who's environment is it?, to claim that an abuse has taken place. And what are the, exact, circumstances of the "starving family". This was Mr. Joseph's main line of babble: take an isolated incidence, attempt to remove the context, deny the full list of relevant facts by failing to mention them, and use the self-created goo of emotion to pound the point home.

 

------------------------

 

Due to the fact, as I've stated many times, that this is not some "new" issue, my obvious recourse is to take a definitive stand. If I research anyone's prior espousals, and find that they have advocated the type of irrational nonsense that Mr. Joseph has become such a prominent voice for, I give fair warning: I will have LESS sympathy than usual (which is none; ha! less than none). All are welcome to apply the same standard to me.

 

"We're trying to have a society here!" (George Costanza)

 

Taking Stefan's observation of the marketablity of irrational malcontents to its logical end: if you espouse anti-liberty ideas, in what ever form, not only would I never hire you, you would not be welcome in my yard, much less my house. Something to think about...

 

Rational malcontents are welcomed with open arms.


  • 0

#18
Kevin Beal

Kevin Beal

    :)


  • 1422 posts

Peter looks really ugly in this video. That can only go badly for him. Anyone attracted to that is someone you don't want around anyway, and it's sure as hell going to put thinking people off.

 

If I hadn't seen Stef's video beforehand I would be very curious what was actually said. The clips Peter provided don't offer much context and once you get that context by actually watching the video, it's going to be an act of willpower to continue to believe that Peter's analysis is anything but exactly what he accuses Stef of.

 

I don't think it's just cuz I'm more familiar with Stef's work and already agree with his analysis, if I hadn't known of either of these guys, I think I would be likely to think that Peter's just being a dick. Or at least highly suspect.

 

If you are a Zeitgeister reading this thread and you haven't watched Stef's video yet, you ought to.

 

Also, Peter's accusation that Stef does nothing but take anecdotes and extrapolates them universally, what Stef actually does is apply principles consistently, and that difference between what is a principle and what is just assertions is the difference between Stef and Peter.


  • 2

"There is no law, no compulsion, no law of physics or man that is preventing you from living the life that you want" - Stef (The Greatest Gift in the Entire Universe)


#19
Guest_darkskyabove_*

Guest_darkskyabove_*

Also, Peter's accusation that Stef does nothing but take anecdotes and extrapolates them universally, what Stef actually does is apply principles consistently, and that difference between what is a principle and what is just assertions is the difference between Stef and Peter.

 

It's worse: taking anecdotes and applying them universally is Mr. Joseph's primary form of verbalization. Once you get past the strings of multi-syllable utterances lacking rational coherence. (Notice I did not say "argument", or "debate", or "discussion", as the man does not seem capable of anything other than verbalization: AKA "running one's mouth".)

 

Blaming another for things one does, themself, is a truly vile practice. Between the "debate" with Stefan, and the "babble" with Joe Rogan, I might have enough "sound-bite" material to create an entire web-site dedicated to the irrationality of Mr. Joseph.

 

Is this guy the "main" spokesman for this Zeitgeist deal? What a shame.


  • 0

#20
powder

powder

  • 105 posts

darkskyabove, maybe I don't understand the definition of 'argument' and I have not listened to all of SM's review video yet, but I have not heard a direct rebuttal to PJ's main thesis that the human need for survival creates the competitive drive to amass resources at the expense of other's well-being - I do believe that is the basis of everything he stands for and promotes.  PJ insists that SM never addresses his main points, and I think he is right.  Saying that: 

 

 "Every one of Mr. Joseph's complaints is aimed at the current system, which has been debunked through the lineage of Paine-Spooner-Rothbard, and many in between. This is not some new topic, with the obligatory "shocked and amazed" phase. Stefan's position is corroborated by over a century (if not more...) of analysis by some very brilliant people. Now comes Mr. Joseph, who claims: that's not enough. Fact is, he doesn't, really, claim much of anything.

 

Does not help clarify it for me and although I completely agree with SM's position, he did not relate it directly to what PJ claims is the root cause of all the world's problems that he complains about.  What am I missing here?  


  • 0

#21
Kevin Beal

Kevin Beal

    :)


  • 1422 posts

darkskyabove, maybe I don't understand the definition of 'argument' and I have not listened to all of SM's review video yet, but I have not heard a direct rebuttal to PJ's main thesis that the human need for survival creates the competitive drive to amass resources at the expense of other's well-being - I do believe that is the basis of everything he stands for and promotes.  PJ insists that SM never addresses his main points, and I think he is right. 

 

I don't believe Stef ever said this was false, what happened was Peter gave some examples of the toxic exploitative stuff he was talking about, and Stef pointed out that actually, these are things that all caused by state violence (as he is constantly forced to do when Peter conflates the free market with the statism, even after Peter agrees with him).

 

I'm sure Stef would agree that desperate people do what they need to do to feed themselves and their families. Where Peter goes with this is to say that people are amoral (which, first of all, is completely untrue and insulting to the desperate guy trying to feed his family) in a "monetary system". So the wealthy businessman will steal from whoever they can for the sake of making some more money since that is real "power" (which doesn't make sense unless you assume a monopoly on violence). That it is not because the man is desperate to feed himself, but because there is money (unless it's convenient to say it is because he's desperate, he's not consistent about this part).

 

There is actually scarcity, it's a fact of life and adults themselves are responsible for taking care of their own by accumulating some sort of financial or human capital. So what Peter does is say that scarcity doesn't have to exist and anything that reflects the reality of scarcity (e.x. currencies, economics) is "coercive", a game that benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the few (history does not reflect this, just btw).

 

I would venture to guess that Stef had this in mind when this topic of differential advantage and how the market system is (ostensibly) inherently violent came up. He kept trying to get Peter to be precise since there is a grand chasm between the idea that (what is actually artificial) scarcity causes people suffering and the idea that the market is violent. Even in a truly free market, some people will suffer, but that's not because people are just evil greedy bastards fucking each other over all the time. It's just a fact of life that people suffer.

 

So when Stef argues that saying the market is violent is akin to saying that love making is rape, I imagine that Stef is trying to highlight this area that requires many more premises to be established in order for it to be concluded. And inevitably in establishing these premises, it's absurdity would be revealed. And that may be the reason that Peter talked with such annoying hypercorrections: to spray his octopus ink all over as he made his escape.


  • 0

"There is no law, no compulsion, no law of physics or man that is preventing you from living the life that you want" - Stef (The Greatest Gift in the Entire Universe)


#22
Guest_darkskyabove_*

Guest_darkskyabove_*

PJ's main thesis that the human need for survival creates the competitive drive to amass resources at the expense of other's well-being - I do believe that is the basis of everything he stands for and promotes.    What am I missing here?  

 

Taken in a --- what was PJ's term, oh yeah --- narrow and truncated view, said thesis appears powerful, thought-provoking, and in need of remedy. But it is an assertion without compelling evidence. It has been addressed repeatedly that if this thesis is in regards to current conditions, then one need only examine the root causes, most of which boil down to the force exerted by the state. How could this be an argument AGAINST the free-market? If his thesis is regarding "human nature", one need only give an honest examination of human history to see that without the co-operation that humans have utilized this discussion would probably not even occur, as humans would have wiped each other out long ago. Is there a need for survival? Yes. Is there competition for scarce resources? Yes. Do some people exploit others? Yes. Is that the end of the discussion? Absolutely not. To be blunt, PJ's "thesis" skirts dangerously close to the methodolgy of, what I would call, fear-mongering propagandists. Take one small piece of reality that has negative connotations, pump it up to seem to be the only factor, and make impassioned pleas that "we must do something".

 

The emotionality of the issue is not the proper facet to exploit. Evidence, and reason would be a more productive path to follow. As yet, I have heard nothing but the first from Mr. Joseph. If I am wrong, please include a quote. (The entire debate has been transcribed and posted to this forum: http://board.freedom...tefan-molyneux/, though any valid reference would be a start.)


  • 0

#23
jimmo100

jimmo100
  • 5 posts

PJ's position, like all Socialists(advocating abolition of private property and private enterprise), seems to be that selfishness on the part of individuals is a problem.

 

Ayn Rand had some things to say in this regard. She spoke about sacrificing oneself and one's own desires for the sake of others' as being immoral. In a sense she was saying it's the lack of selfishness which is a problem.

 

Clearly the key issue is not what to do about peoples' selfishness but what is one's definition of 'self'. If you have low-expectations of where individual liberty might lead, we had all better hope you are not selfish and that if you are, that you have very little influence over others. If, on the other hand, you have high expectations of yourself and what you can achieve we should all hope you are as selfish as you can possibly be.

 

PJ continually points out the nature of mankind as being this wild animal which needs external restraints to be constantly applied. This is the typical authoritarian position which justifies central planning and when you look at what that produces, it's a downward spiral. Because you begin to produce the effects you claim authoritarianism is necessary to prevent. Like a self-fulfilling doomsday prophesy.

 

Authoritarians look at and continually point out the worst examples of human beings whilst Libertarians look at the best examples of human beings. Man is capable of good as well as bad but where is man most unhappy? He is most unhappy when he is engaged in being bad... that tells me right there that man is innately good. Otherwise he would be happy in doing evil. So the evil in man is man not in an innate state but in an aberrated state.

In my view, the closest an evil-doer ever comes to being happy is when everyone around him descends in tone, approaching that of his own, but that is not true happiness. That is rather a sense of relief... relief that he - as the evil doer, once among optimists, has less chance of being exposed.

To me it seems plausible that each individual uses himself as the ultimate evidence for whether or not authoritarian restraint is required to be imposed on the whole of humanity. The vast majority are not calling for such authoritarian controls. It's only ever a few. A few who have come to hold a very distorted image of themselves and so wish to resort to totalitarian measures to quel their fears. It's not sane.


  • 0

#24
gwho

gwho
  • 98 posts

I don't like how Peter doesn't develop points. I also don't like him as a person - gut feeling.


  • 1

#25
Mishelle

Mishelle

  • 335 posts

I will copy the same words I wrote on PJ's last video:

"It's unfortunate that these two great thinkers and teachers who have so much to offer in a debate of ideas that could enlighten many people find it necessary to personally attack and belittle each other to such a degree that their arguments and rationality fly right out the window. Such a shame." 


  • 0

"...when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."
- H. G. Wells,The New World Order

 

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you… you may know that your society is doomed."
–Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged


#26
xelent

xelent

  • 2183 posts

Hi Mishele, I'm genuinely curious, as this keeps cropping up on the boards (and facebook) I've noticed. What should Stefan have done in your estimation, that he didn't do, so as to have averted this conflict with PJ? Why must Stefan share in the general admonishment? Perhaps I have missed something of course.

 

However, I think it's possibly a very poignant issue as a community we could learn from. Conflict is an issue that we have to deal with from time to time, not just here, but within our personal lives mainly. I found this a great exercise in learning how to understand the causes of our emotions and learning to criticise someone rationally and openly.

 

I know I've had people in my life scream and holler at me, when I told them a truth and then I had these third parties attempt to say that we were both wrong. It was deeply annoying when this wasn't the case.


  • 5

#27
Hannibal

Hannibal
  • 454 posts

10:40 - The necessity to eat and drink, in order to not die, is "natural coercion". The guy is just a child. Stef was spot on. 

 

To live or to die is a choice. To spend the night with a beautiful woman (assuming that I can do whatever is necessary to achieve such a thing), or not, is a choice.

 

By PJ's reasoning, the inability to have a robot overlord deliver a beautiful woman to my bedroom each night is a form of coercion.

 

So my question is, can the zeitgeist resource based economy provide me with fresh virgins each night? 


  • 1

#28
powder

powder

  • 105 posts

Taken in a --- what was PJ's term, oh yeah --- narrow and truncated view, said thesis appears powerful, thought-provoking, and in need of remedy. But it is an assertion without compelling evidence. It has been addressed repeatedly that if this thesis is in regards to current conditions, then one need only examine the root causes, most of which boil down to the force exerted by the state. How could this be an argument AGAINST the free-market? If his thesis is regarding "human nature", one need only give an honest examination of human history to see that without the co-operation that humans have utilized this discussion would probably not even occur, as humans would have wiped each other out long ago. Is there a need for survival? Yes. Is there competition for scarce resources? Yes. Do some people exploit others? Yes. Is that the end of the discussion? Absolutely not. To be blunt, PJ's "thesis" skirts dangerously close to the methodolgy of, what I would call, fear-mongering propagandists. Take one small piece of reality that has negative connotations, pump it up to seem to be the only factor, and make impassioned pleas that "we must do something".

 

The emotionality of the issue is not the proper facet to exploit. Evidence, and reason would be a more productive path to follow. As yet, I have heard nothing but the first from Mr. Joseph. If I am wrong, please include a quote. (The entire debate has been transcribed and posted to this forum: http://board.freedom...tefan-molyneux/, though any valid reference would be a start.)

 

 

You did a great job of making Stef's point for him and I think he would agree with what you have put forward here as it relates to PJ's argument.  I don't think that Stef came across as well in the video, I will listen again.  I really was distracted by PJ's cumbersome orations and flippant assertions without foundation, and I just wanted SM to ignore that a bit more and get to the root of his argument, which does not have a good foundation as you point out.  PJ was frustrated too that SM didn't address his main thesis as well, as he points out again in his own review of the debate.  


  • 0

#29
Kevin Beal

Kevin Beal

    :)


  • 1422 posts

You did a great job of making Stef's point for him and I think he would agree with what you have put forward here as it relates to PJ's argument.  I don't think that Stef came across as well in the video, I will listen again.  I really was distracted by PJ's cumbersome orations and flippant assertions without foundation, and I just wanted SM to ignore that a bit more and get to the root of his argument, which does not have a good foundation as you point out.  PJ was frustrated too that SM didn't address his main thesis as well, as he points out again in his own review of the debate.  

 

Again, I don't think this is right. Like Stef points out, the point of debate is to have a back and forth, not to speak past each other. As I described above, Stef was very consistent about that. And he had made his main argument at the beginning and at the end of the "debate". If you missed his core argument, then you missed two opportunities to hear it all laid out.

 

I don't know how people could think that Stef and Peter should share the responsibility for how badly that debate went. I don't think it's because I'm biased (which of course I am), I genuinely don't understand that.


  • 0

"There is no law, no compulsion, no law of physics or man that is preventing you from living the life that you want" - Stef (The Greatest Gift in the Entire Universe)


#30
JamesP

JamesP


  • 3643 posts
Does Peter Joseph ever come off as happy?

I'm not familiar with the man's presentations and am wondering about this, especially since the title of this thread may rightfully be properly truncated to "Peter Joseph is not happy." The current title seems somewhat narrow.
  • 2

Connect with me: @jamesapyrich, Facebook, james-a-pyrich on Skype


Meetup with fellow local Freedomainers!

 

I accept BTC: 1DGcCf52Tnyc6pJbyQUwbiLj6Pkt6qHa3Y


#31
powder

powder

  • 105 posts

Again, I don't think this is right. Like Stef points out, the point of debate is to have a back and forth, not to speak past each other. As I described above, Stef was very consistent about that. And he had made his main argument at the beginning and at the end of the "debate". If you missed his core argument, then you missed two opportunities to hear it all laid out.

 

I don't know how people could think that Stef and Peter should share the responsibility for how badly that debate went. I don't think it's because I'm biased (which of course I am), I genuinely don't understand that.

It was not a good debate, PJ was not interested in debating, he just wanted to get his points across and reluctantly let SM chime in once in a while.  Still, I understand and heard SM's main argument, but can you show me where he directly addresses PJ's main thesis of how the need for survival and scarcity creates competition at the expense of others?  PJ insists that this 'fact' would create 'structural violence' without the market or the state, as these are both byproducts of the core drive to survive. 


  • 1

#32
nathanm

nathanm

  • 1771 posts

Nah, he seems like a ray of light, really.  Sometimes I mistake him for Jeffrey Tucker he's so full of cheer.  Here, print out this awesome motivational poster I found on the internet and hang it up on the Sunshine Board at work:

 

peter-joseph-zeitgeist-movement.jpg


  • 4

"The government always sneaks in when I'm half seized-over and purloins the very thread from my hanky!" - Joad Cressbeckler


#33
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator


  • 1232 posts

Does Peter Joseph ever come off as happy?

I'm not familiar with the man's presentations and am wondering about this, especially since the title of this thread may rightfully be properly truncated to "Peter Joseph is not happy." The current title seems somewhat narrow.

I think the problem is your "narrow use" of the word happy. After all, if Peter Joseph is always not happy, then it seems narrow and redundant to change the title to "Peter Joseph is not happy" and instead, it should be properly replaced with "Peter Joseph" which in itself holds the "is not happy" implication but is much broader in its usage.

 

**Scoffs**

 

Narrow-minded libertarians :verymad:


  • 4

#34
Rayne

Rayne

  • 33 posts

I feel sorry for Peter Joseph.  He needs a hug.  I wonder if he just got too deep into all of this stuff.  I mean, the original Zeitgeist performance was just a mulit-media percussion piece that he ended up posting to YouTube.  He says he never thought it would take off like it did.  Of course he is responsible for his own actions but he may have just gotten swept-up into a movement that he didn't fully understand.  He should stick to his documentaries and write some more music.  Culture in Decline is entertaining.


  • 0

#35
kalmia

kalmia
  • 255 posts

darkskyabove, maybe I don't understand the definition of 'argument' and I have not listened to all of SM's review video yet, but I have not heard a direct rebuttal to PJ's main thesis that the human need for survival creates the competitive drive to amass resources at the expense of other's well-being - I do believe that is the basis of everything he stands for and promotes.  PJ insists that SM never addresses his main points, and I think he is right.  Saying that: 

 

 "Every one of Mr. Joseph's complaints is aimed at the current system, which has been debunked through the lineage of Paine-Spooner-Rothbard, and many in between. This is not some new topic, with the obligatory "shocked and amazed" phase. Stefan's position is corroborated by over a century (if not more...) of analysis by some very brilliant people. Now comes Mr. Joseph, who claims: that's not enough. Fact is, he doesn't, really, claim much of anything.

 

Does not help clarify it for me and although I completely agree with SM's position, he did not relate it directly to what PJ claims is the root cause of all the world's problems that he complains about.  What am I missing here?  

 

 

10:40 - The necessity to eat and drink, in order to not die, is "natural coercion". The guy is just a child. Stef was spot on. 

 

To live or to die is a choice. To spend the night with a beautiful woman (assuming that I can do whatever is necessary to achieve such a thing), or not, is a choice.

 

By PJ's reasoning, the inability to have a robot overlord deliver a beautiful woman to my bedroom each night is a form of coercion.

 

So my question is, can the zeitgeist resource based economy provide me with fresh virgins each night? 

 

People accumulate resources for survival, but organism survival is not what is trying to survive from a biological point of view. Every action is motivated by gene survival. I find the neglect of this interesting. Is PJ unaware of this, or is he disingenuous? I don't care what fancy robots will come from PJ's fantasies, but there will not be an end to this. Males will continue to accumulate resources and status in order to attract females. I am sure PJ is motivated to develop the movement of his and win debates in order to gain status.


  • 0

"I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream." - Terence McKenna






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users