Culture in Decline 5th Episode

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


Give the people a bare ass spanking in front of the whole court room if they are found guilty. They won't do it again. If they keep it up, put them in one of those blocks like they did in the old days where their hands and head are stuck through. a day in the block in the middle of town and they will be so embarrassed they will move out of town.
We need the good old days again to keep down crime.




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 

Dear CirqueDeTruth,

You've hit upon one of my hot buttons. I will do my best to remain polite and respectful. But upon re-reading I see that I may be misinterpreting your remarks.

I think our jails are horrible to. I feel that many of the misdemeanor crimes should be redirected towards cognitive behavioral therapy with a care plan in getting these people focused on pathways that lead to vocational or college training. We should be helping them break whatever cycle their in. Sitting on your butt in jail - isn't going to offer that. Dangerous sociopaths and psychopaths - deserve their confinement, in my opinion.


The absolute last thing I want to see is for prisons become places where people are released when they have become rehabilitated. If that is the justification, then they shouldn't be released until they are rehabilitated. I would rather see sentences of 5 years at hard labor, or 10 years on a chain gang, or 40 lashes, than see "You're out when you're rehabilitated."

Those other sentences have limits. Society has declared "We will go this far, but no farther, in your punishment." But to receive release under a rehabilitation system you would have to pass tests administered by government psychiatrists. You could be locked away for life for the crime of burglary, if those white-coated bureaucrats decide you're not ready to return to society.

And if those locked away for crimes can be "treated" with drugs and what-not for life because of a crime they did commit, isn't it reasonable for society to start "treating" people who, tests show, will probably commit a crime?

Forgive me for getting carried away, but I feel strongly about this.

With respect,
Charles1952


The poor rehabilitation has been addressed as being the inefficiency of the system by Peter Joseph in the video.I just posted the transcript regarding this.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

Dear The_Oracle,

Most important is my need to thank you for the work you've done in this thread. Posting the transcripts was helpful for many, I'm sure.

The video does a very good job of presenting it's case. I think the case it presents leads to an erroneous and dangerous conclusion, and I reject it completely.

I might have misinterpreted the message of the video, so please correct me where I go wrong. It appears, in the video, that the cause of crime is economic, more specifically, the poverty some are in compared to others in the same society. Therefore, inequality of income, wealth, or both must be eliminated. The only way to do this is by government action.

So the video presents the idea that the way to stop crime is for the government to control everyone's money and to distribute it in accordance with government guidelines.

Again, I don't see an alternative explanation, but if you can tell me what the video is advocting (Please, not in terms like "restructuring the socio-economic matrix for a more sustainable system") I'd be grateful.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   


,,,,,,,,,,

So the video presents the idea that the way to stop crime is for the government to control everyone's money and to distribute it in accordance with government guidelines.

Again, I don't see an alternative explanation, but if you can tell me what the video is advocting (Please, not in terms like "restructuring the socio-economic matrix for a more sustainable system") I'd be grateful.

With respect,
Charles1952


Almost,,,,,, Peter is ultimately advocating a Resource Based Economic Model, a society where money or barter do not exist. The RBEM intends to remove "Differential Value (money) Advantage" as a method of coercion/control, ie. "do this and I will give you this".

Don't worry if you find such a new society difficult to comprehend, we have all been conditioned from birth to acquire as many .gov issued vouchers (Fiat Money) as we can get our hands on.

There are thousands of hours of video on this subject & over half million international TZM Members, Search for "The Zeitgeist Movement", "The Venus Project"
edit on 4/5/13 by UKMinarchist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

I might have misinterpreted the message of the video, so please correct me where I go wrong. It appears, in the video, that the cause of crime is economic, more specifically, the poverty some are in compared to others in the same society. Therefore, inequality of income, wealth, or both must be eliminated. The only way to do this is by government action.


It also says that expecting your congressman to fix the problem for you, or the government as you brought up would solve nothing, as that is an establishment in the box thinking to a problem caused by the very system of which that particular government or congressman is apart of and has to support regardless of external pressures such as societies demand for a better quality of life or even natures demands to be sustainable.

This is where the Resource Based Economy comes in, if you or anyone else interested want to know about it, look into these videos or visit the main sites here:

An Intro. to a Resource-Based Economy [ TEDx - Peter Joseph ]



The Venus Project - Future By Design - Full documentary



ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011



Peter Joseph - Arriving at a Resource Based Economy | London Z Day 2011



Links

The Zeitgeist Movement
The Venus Project



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I don't see much changing until people start taking responsibility for their own lives, in every way they live.

I would recommend tackling that issue first, and maybe you might see some change.

Good luck with whatever you're trying to achieve!



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


I don't see much changing until people start taking responsibility for their own lives, in every way they live.

I would recommend tackling that issue first, and maybe you might see some change.

Good luck with whatever you're trying to achieve!


Well responsibility can only come with educational awareness, and that is basically what we as a movement try to do, with the hope that others shall see the potential for a greater life for everyone on the world if only we transitioned to a Resource Based Economy,

Incorporating the values and philosophy of the movement and the RBE is also a crucial aspect in order to help the progression of awareness on these issues, and to adopt a better, healthier lifestyle.

Thank you for your kind words, I wish you well.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Well responsibility can only come with educational awareness, and that is basically what we as a movement try to do, with the hope that others shall see the potential for a greater life for everyone on the world if only we transitioned to a Resource Based Economy,

Incorporating the values and philosophy of the movement and the RBE is also a crucial aspect in order to help the progression of awareness on these issues, and to adopt a better, healthier lifestyle.

Thank you for your kind words, I wish you well.


Yes, and with educational awareness (knowledge), they may know what needs to be done. But how many people are willing to change most every aspect of their lifestyle just because they have knowledge on what is going wrong?

Every direction I see is leading to a crash - economic, environmental, social, etc. And that crash/reset needs to happen for any real change to happen, because people in general are not willing to change themselves. It's hard. An external force is necessary for that change.

And many of those who think they're ready for the "crash" and will 'survivalist' it out, usually are preparing to have the same quality of life as they know now -- which is not helpful to the planet as a species.

The current Westernized/Civilized ways are wrong and parasitic to Earth, but that's all most people know anymore. Like I said, good luck, it's a tough battle that ends in collapse, like many other roads =)

The current common way of life does not work, has not worked, yet people still keep trying to make it work, as Mother Earth continues to react oppositely.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

Dear The_Oracle,

Thank you for posting the videos, I watched a little over half an hour of the Peter Joseph presentation in London. I think the idea is bad enough, but the world it would create, if implemented, is even worse. Thankfully, it has no chance to be implemented in my lifetime.

I'm sorry that I can't find a reason to be a supporter, but there it is.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by The_Oracle


Yes, and with educational awareness (knowledge), they may know what needs to be done. But how many people are willing to change most every aspect of their lifestyle just because they have knowledge on what is going wrong?

Every direction I see is leading to a crash - economic, environmental, social, etc. And that crash/reset needs to happen for any real change to happen, because people in general are not willing to change themselves. It's hard. An external force is necessary for that change.

And many of those who think they're ready for the "crash" and will 'survivalist' it out, usually are preparing to have the same quality of life as they know now -- which is not helpful to the planet as a species.

The current Westernized/Civilized ways are wrong and parasitic to Earth, but that's all most people know anymore. Like I said, good luck, it's a tough battle that ends in collapse, like many other roads =)

The current common way of life does not work, has not worked, yet people still keep trying to make it work, as Mother Earth continues to react oppositely.


While it is true that if humanity persists on it's current road, it is inevitable that a crash of civilization will happen, and from that point onward our future as a species will take a major blow, as the path onward would most certainly lead us to a new dark age.

With this is mind all we can do is at least try to wake people up and make them care enough to try and stop this from happening.Hopefully people will be open minded enough to realize this in their own time until it's too late.
edit on 5/5/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

Dear The_Oracle,

Thank you for posting the videos, I watched a little over half an hour of the Peter Joseph presentation in London. I think the idea is bad enough, but the world it would create, if implemented, is even worse. Thankfully, it has no chance to be implemented in my lifetime.

I'm sorry that I can't find a reason to be a supporter, but there it is.

With respect,
Charles1952


Could you elaborate on why you think it is a bad idea or that it would lead to a worse world? The movements and the RBE models goal are the improvement of every level of the human world with the best solutions we are capable of today.

I do not know whether it is your fear of change that is bothering you to see that or the comforts of today's decadent lifestyle.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Anyone else interested in sharing their opinion about the main video, transcript or the other videos regarding The Zeitgeist Movement the Venus Project and Resource Based Economy?

Feel free to ask question if you want to.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

Dear The_Oracle,

Thanks for your kindness throughout this thread. I suspect my answer will not be satisfying, as I am basing it on only a liitle over half an hour of video, but I offer it for what little it is worth.

My one, overall impression was impatience, not his, mine. After I hear "Sustainable," "Efficiency," "Utilization," "System," etc. often enough I start asking "But, what are you going to do?"

My understanding is that this requires a world-wide government which will allocate the necessities for survival to all people. Anything more than that will be owned by the government and put in storage for people to borrow and return. The Central Planning Committee will decide how much natural resource can be taken and used in any given year, and what those resources will be made into. The production process will be as automated as possible, so that relatively inefficent humans will not be involved.

Obviously, there are many questions. Probably, allocation questions are the most all-encompassing. Let me offer some examples. Assume a piece of land near the ocean with a lovely view. A developer wants to build homes there and a University wants to build a research lab. The costs and everything else are the same. Who gets the land? Who decides? On what basis do they decide? In a monetary system, that's not a problem.

Two cancer patients, one set of medical resources. Who gets treated? Or, Mr Joseph's example of taking his filming equipment out of government storage a few times a year. What happens when someone else wants it to film a documentary on garden snails that same week? How is it decided? Who picks the value that determines who gets the equipment/

There will always be problems of scarce resources. The monetary system has a method to prioritize, the RBE will require bureaucrats to make that decision.

Even if the system is run by super-colossal computers, somebody has to put in the formulas and weights assigned. Central commissions under RBE, and consumer purchases under the monetary system. Now, especially, I'm not inclined to trust any government with important decisions. Health care is a fine goal, but Obamacare is a ridiculous way to get there. Is there any reason to suppose that, under a world government, the decisions would be any better?

I'm also concerned about the proposed solution to the question of incentives for workers. The monetary system has specifics rewards to offer. The RBE requires each worker to change their own internal motivations so they will be happy to work for the good of the Motherland. Is it unreasonable for me to think that the required change in motivation might be caused by guns, beatings, or prison camps? Especially if there aren't enough people "volunteering" to work at places like sewage treatment plants, and medical waste disposal facilities?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Okay, first of all a Resource Based Economy is not politically oriented, so there actually won't be a government.

The actual decision making will be arrived upon through the scientific method, which currently is humanities best method for solving anything.This means factors previously ignored or considered less important then profit by the current system like sustainability, efficiency, environmentalism, human health and human progress will be prioritized if the goal of humanity would be to create a better world for everyone, which it is through a RBE.

Regarding resources, one of the main points of a Resource Based Economy is the allocation of resources in the most sustainable way possible.The how's would be determined by scientists using the scientific method with computers, like for example NASA is making to track global resources.They could then use that data to determine the required amount of resources for a human to live a healthy life.

Now you're probably thinking well then scientists will rule the world, right? Well no, actually the intrinsic motivation will be inherently different then what you find in the current system that is greed,corruption etc. because we'd be transitioning to an RBE where the values and philosophy are aligned with what science tells us that is the best for a healthy human way of life and a healthy society.Education will play a key role in this to ensure future generations will benefit from this and grow up in a balanced, stable, compassionate environment compared to the one we have now,where people's psychology is distorted because of a harmful environment which brings out the worst of humanity.

Another worry I saw was the supposed lack of resources, well if that were true then there wouldn't be such a wastefulness problem.If everything from production to allocation of resources were motivated with the purpose to be the benefit of everyone with maximum efficiency, environmental friendliness, then you wouldn't perceive this as a problem.But because it isn't, and we have artificial scarcity in place instead to give the illusion of a lack of resources, you and others perceive abundance impossible.

With the advent of increasingly complex and efficient computers, the production problem will be simplified even further, and abundance would be the norm.Jobs that would be dangerous, unhealthy or too difficult would be tasked over to computerized machines.Also incentive or motivation for the jobs that wouldn't be taken over by machines would be jobs humans would actually want to do, because they love to do it and are passionate about it.

Without having to fear being fired or not being able to feed yourself or your family, the motivation and productivity along with human health would increase like never before.The values, orientation and mindset of humans would shift from a competitive society to a cooperative one with the priority being the collective wellbeing of everyone which previously under slightly similar systems like communism wouldn't have been possible, for a multitude of reasons ranging from a faulty economic model only available in certain countries and not globalized, to poor appliance of science if at all, and lack of the technologies, knowledge and possibilities that we have today.
edit on 5/5/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/5/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Also another crucial link I'm sure will help most of you understand a lot more about the movement and a Resource Based Economy and clear any confusion or misunderstanding you might have.

The Zeitgeist Movement Defined: Realizing a New Train of Thought



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by The_Oracle


Yes, and with educational awareness (knowledge), they may know what needs to be done. But how many people are willing to change most every aspect of their lifestyle just because they have knowledge on what is going wrong?

Every direction I see is leading to a crash - economic, environmental, social, etc. And that crash/reset needs to happen for any real change to happen, because people in general are not willing to change themselves. It's hard. An external force is necessary for that change.

And many of those who think they're ready for the "crash" and will 'survivalist' it out, usually are preparing to have the same quality of life as they know now -- which is not helpful to the planet as a species.

The current Westernized/Civilized ways are wrong and parasitic to Earth, but that's all most people know anymore. Like I said, good luck, it's a tough battle that ends in collapse, like many other roads =)

The current common way of life does not work, has not worked, yet people still keep trying to make it work, as Mother Earth continues to react oppositely.


While it is true that if humanity persists on it's current road, it is inevitable that a crash of civilization will happen, and from that point onward our future as a species will take a major blow, as the path onward would most certainly lead us to a new dark age.

With this is mind all we can do is at least try to wake people up and make them care enough to try and stop this from happening.Hopefully people will be open minded enough to realize this in their own time until it's too late.
edit on 5/5/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)


The thing is, a crash has to happen for Earth to survive. And Earth will make sure that happens, though who knows which way that will be done.

On your point of a "dark age" - you make it sound like a bad thing. This current way of life is a 'dark age' for the Earth. Capitalism, consumerism, etc. - all takes resources from the Earth and eventually goes back to the Earth in the form of pollution, further destroying nature. The bad news is that in parts around the world, everyone WANTS the kind of lifestyle enjoyed in Western places like USA. There is no will for change to benefit the human species or mother Earth.

So even if we "wake up" people to reality, there will be no will to change lifestyles unless mandated by an outside force. So if the people "wake up" -- how would they have to live to make a difference? IMO the easiest way is a crash, so people are forced to. There are very very few who would make a permanent lifestyle change voluntarily.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Oracle
 

Dear The_Oracle,

I would have enjoyed it if we could have discussed these problems as between normal people, over a beer, using recognizable language. Oh well, perhaps you know best.

I went to the link you provided in answer to my question. I found this (and I'm quoting the whole paragraph to avoid distorting the context):

On the surface, reformations proposed in TZM's promoted solutions might appear to mirror attributes of “Marxism” if one was to completely ignore the underlying reasoning. The idea of a society “without classes”, “without universal property”, and the complete redefinition of what comprises the “State” might, on the surface, show confluence by the mere gestures themselves, especially since Western Academia commonly promotes a “duality” between “Communism” and “Capitalism” with the aforementioned character points noted as the core differences. However, the actual Train of Thought to support these seemingly similar conclusions is quite different.
It sure looks to me like he's saying "We'll do all the Marxist things, but it's OK because we're doing them for different reasons." That is not comforting at all.

Oh, and the idea we wouldn't need a government? What happens when a town, factory, or person doesn't do as they're told? It would foul up the system if there was any significant disobedience. And if you tell me that everyone will be trained and re-educated to do as they're told, I will run from you screaming.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by The_Oracle




The thing is, a crash has to happen for Earth to survive. And Earth will make sure that happens, though who knows which way that will be done.

On your point of a "dark age" - you make it sound like a bad thing. This current way of life is a 'dark age' for the Earth. Capitalism, consumerism, etc. - all takes resources from the Earth and eventually goes back to the Earth in the form of pollution, further destroying nature. The bad news is that in parts around the world, everyone WANTS the kind of lifestyle enjoyed in Western places like USA. There is no will for change to benefit the human species or mother Earth.

It would be a Dark Age, as our scientific and technological progress would surely dwindle, and with that any hopes for humanity to unite and drop the illusory notions of nationalist and ideological differences, and send us a few steps backwards.

So even if we "wake up" people to reality, there will be no will to change lifestyles unless mandated by an outside force. So if the people "wake up" -- how would they have to live to make a difference? IMO the easiest way is a crash, so people are forced to. There are very very few who would make a permanent lifestyle change voluntarily.


It would be a Dark Age, as our scientific and technological progress would surely dwindle, and the chance for humanity to unit through the illusory divides such as nationalism would be lost, sending us back a few steps in our overall goal.

Saying everyone wants the western lifestyle is generalizing, in fact what most people do want is to have all their basic fundamental needs met.Anything more then that is wasteful and damaging to the environment. and also ourselves as we develop harmful tendencies like greed or corruption as some have already.

And actually there is a will for change, in the form of more and more activist organizations that are becoming more and more aware of the problems, and realize the potential greatness of a future if we all work together.

People will make a lifestyles change if the benefits outweigh the negatives, and in this case having all your basic necessities covered, not having to worry about surviving from one day to another for you and your family, and being able to do what you always wanted to without having to pay for it, is well worth it for anyone.
edit on 5/6/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by The_Oracle
 


On the surface, reformations proposed in TZM's promoted solutions might appear to mirror attributes of “Marxism” if one was to completely ignore the underlying reasoning. The idea of a society “without classes”, “without universal property”, and the complete redefinition of what comprises the “State” might, on the surface, show confluence by the mere gestures themselves, especially since Western Academia commonly promotes a “duality” between “Communism” and “Capitalism” with the aforementioned character points noted as the core differences. However, the actual Train of Thought to support these seemingly similar conclusions is quite different.
It sure looks to me like he's saying "We'll do all the Marxist things, but it's OK because we're doing them for different reasons." That is not comforting at all.

Oh, and the idea we wouldn't need a government? What happens when a town, factory, or person doesn't do as they're told? It would foul up the system if there was any significant disobedience. And if you tell me that everyone will be trained and re-educated to do as they're told, I will run from you screaming.


What it's actually saying is that there are certain similarities, but the underlying reasons for them are different.The only similarities are concepts such as a "classless society", "lack of universal property" and redefinition of the commonly accepted "State".

However, the actual Train of Thought to support these seemingly similar conclusions is quite different.And this is a very important distinction.

Well the concept of doing what you're told is more akin to the current system of capitalism, then it is to an RBE.Only in our current system are we treated as mere slaves, ordered to work our lives off to satisfy a select few, and disobedience occurs from the perspective of the masters.But what human wouldn't stop doing what they're told under these conditions?

In an RBE you'd take human healthy into consideration and then realize that this kind of treatment is detrimental for a healthy society, and therefor shift values, and mentality to a friendly and healthier approach which is education as you said, and the creation of an suitable, caring environment which will drastically reduce disorders such as stress and distorted behaviors stemming from it.

The remaining cases would be attributed to mental health disorders, and they would have to be helped accordingly with humane state of the art treatments, unlike throwing them in jails or current mental institutions where they are abused,probably because they also deserve a spot in the care of doctors, maltreatment which only adds to the guaranteed worsening of the patient.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The Venus Project or RBE vs. Communism

edit on 5/15/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/15/2013 by The_Oracle because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join