Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
My agendas were to have a list of questions answered for me, and if they couldn't be answered realistically, then obviously the movement is a sham
(or worse) that ZM people might get a grip.
Well, there ya go. Thanks for explaining your motivation, not that it was hard to see. Let me be also frank. I'm not a member of that particular ZM
forum but I am a member in another country. Personally I also see the ZM and TVP as a work in progress, and a lot of issues still have to be properly
addressed. However I do think the basic premise is a good one and offers a much better and improved society then we have now.
In my experience, a lot of people who criticize Zeitgeist actually don't have a full grasp of what the movement proposes and the motivation for that
is selfish reasoning. What about my property? What about my gun? What about my money? It's the behavior of scared little children. Relax. A
transition of any sort will take a very long time. But I digress.
Here are answers to your questions on that forum. Note that some sincere people took the time and energy to answer your questions. How sincere you
were is doubtful imo.
Even if you might dismiss the context of my outline above, please answer these questions:
I don't dismiss your context. I do think you are not being objective and you are projecting what you think this movement is about erroneously.
Nevertheless, hit me with your questions...
A: How could the ZM be implemented without a totalitarian regime to enforce it? Don't forget the idea of the ZM is that its to be global in scale.
Through agreement. This is how anything works. The very monetary system we value is just that: an agreement. Same with our laws. They only are upheld
because the majority of people agree to them. There is no totalitarian regime which would enforce anything this movement promotes. You're trying to
find "NWO" where none exists.
B: How is it any different than Communism?
Well, believe it or not, this question gets responded to continuously on here. You might want to start off with some basic facts about communism
though, to compare it:
Communism is run by a ruling class of politicians. A Resource Based Economy isn't. It is a systems approach using science. Communism is
nationalistic. A Resource Based Economy is humanistic. Communism doesn't even begin to address the problem of scarcity by offering solutions, instead
it offers rationing. A Resource Based Economy doesn't promote rationing, it promotes access.
You might want to read a recent response I had to another user who had a similar mis perception:
C: What about private property rights? What are PJ and JF's views on this? What is yours?
I'm all for it, if you want it. There is nothing wrong with private property. The only reason anyone declares something to be their private property
is because it ensures nobody else will claim it. In other words, out of fear of a scarcity driven fear of losing whatever piece of property. Do you
see anyone declare the air around their house as their "private air"? You don't see that because it is so abundant. There is no scarcity of it, so
the very idea sounds absurd. In a Resource Based Economy private property will no doubt be protected, however it will be irrelevant, because nobody
would want to steal things from others when everything is readily accessible. Even people like Winona Ryder, who have all the money in the world and
yet decide to shoplift...they only do so because of the thrill. Everyone who asks these questions is still thinking about these things in terms of how
the world works right now. Yes, right now, the idea of "no private property" sounds very dangerous. But don't confuse this with the fact that when
we talk about no private property in the future, it doesn't mean that some law will go into effect...rather it is an understanding based on
rationally considering the implications of an access based resource system. If you have access to something, whenever you need it, what does it matter
if it is "private" property or not? If you need something, and it's there, always, who cares if we call it mine, yours, ours, etc. Think of a
family. A mom, a dad, two boys and girl. They decide to get a water filtration device. They all pitch in the same amount, and all have ACCESS to clean
water whenever they need it. When someone says "whose water filter is that?" how do you think they should answer? Does it even matter? What happens
when you begin to look at the entire WORLD'S population as a family like that? Do you see the idea?
D: Who will pay for it initially?
Pay for what? This is the wrong question. Money doesn't make the world go round. This is another common misconception. It is AGREEMENT and RESOURCES
and TECHNOLOGY that makes the world go round. If we all reached the agreement that money was useless, then it would be so. If you have 0 dollars or if
you have 10,000,000,000 dollars, it doesn't change the laws of chemistry. It doesn't make gravity any more powerful. Money doesn't do ANYTHING. It
doesn't make more oil appear in the ground and it doesn't help reduce pollution.
Who will pay for it? Wrong question. The question is: where will the resources, technology and agreements come from. The answer: when enough people
share the same value system, then these processes will get put into effect.
E: What about the jobs robots cant replace? And who decides who gets the crappy jobs or the good jobs?
Give an example. So called "crappy" jobs will be automated as best they can be, and with other jobs that the technology for automation doesn't
exist yet, it could easily be done with remote control drones. For instance, instead of making a human do a nasty job, you have the human do a
simulation of that job, so any unpleasant smell, or any danger (such as working on rooftops, at great heights, underwater, etc) can be done by a very
fine-tuned remote controlled machine that the user can interface with, which has extremely delicate tactile controls. It would be like playing a video
game. I know many people that would not even consider this a job, they would be fascinated by the very idea in fact.
For certain other jobs, there could be a volunteer based system. We have many of these today. Many people in the armed forces do so out of the desire
to do their duty for their country, for their citizens, for honor, etc. This same reasoning would still exist, only that instead of doing your duty by
grabbing a gun, you do so by driving around an EMT vehicle to save lives. Or you do so by working a certain job that machines are not yet able to
automate. If only a small percentage of people did these jobs just once every few weeks, it would be more than enough. Certainly though, eventually
automation would become so capable of even things like treating emergency victims, that it would be used for virtually everything, allowing humans to
not have to do "work" but rather to make music, art, research, have fun, write books, without needing to do it for profit. Without needing to worry
about funding, etc.
F: Are there ANY comparable examples of this system in history that worked?
Are there any comparable examples of the technology we have today, that we had in our history? Have we ever had the internet in the past? There were
examples of slavery throughout our history. In fact slavery worked for thousands of years throughout our history. Does that mean we should use it
because it is a time-tested method? Lets not look to the past to tell us what is possible in the future. We SHOULD look to the past to LEARN from it.
But lets not look to the past to impose limitations on us.
(Continued in next post.)