It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Peter Joseph vs Stefan Molyneux

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:54 AM
Here is a video discussion that they had some weeks ago. If you don't know them : Peter Joseph is the maker of the zeitgeist movies and founder of the zeitgeist movement which advocates for a resource based economy, and Stefan Molyneux is the host of the freedomain radio, he is a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, and he advocates for a "true" free-market society.

You may want to watch the video before reading my opinion

I think SM lacks a global view of things, an overall vision. He sees the world through the glasses of his ideology, while PJ tries to see things as largely as possible and as unbiased as possible. Often SM is found reducing whole arguments to small details or examples, totally ignoring the big picture, and when PJ denounces that behavior, SM is offended and considers that as an insult, while I really think that it's true that SM's thinking is confined in a little ideological box.

SM main argument is about "voluntary trade", but PJ tries to show him that it is not voluntary because there are all kinds of pressures, and the first and most important pressure is human needs. If I am starving, I am being forced to trade. And to that, SM only answer is that people are not forced to trade, because they could go live in a jungle and hunt and fish : I think this is totally ridiculous.

SM totally ignores the state of science and technology today, he ignores the fact that today we could create an abundance of goods in many areas through automation and robotics, and the reason this is not done is because of this ideology of free-market, money, profit, trading etc. And this is just the beginning : what will happen when 3D printing and AI become so efficient that human labor becomes inefficient and retarded thus obsolete ?

SM seems to think that history is linear, that what was socially viable and efficient 1000 years ago, is still efficient today and will still be in 1000 years. This is just not true : sometimes things happen than change a lot of other things, and science and technology is one of those things. Why would I need to trade for a pencil when we have technology that can print pencils on demand ? Why would I need to trade for something that is abundant ? The fact that SM completely ignores that is astonishing and proves again that his thinking is confined in a little box. He is blind to the real possibilities of the real world. It is like debating with a religious man who cannot think of something else than his fairy tales.

All that said, I think SM ideal society would make a good transition into an RBE.
edit on 31-10-2013 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:15 AM
Fair review, I've watched that twice and walked away with a very similar feeling. However I am also totally unimpressed with the both of them.
I find them both to be blowhards, who missed a good chance at brainstorming--- instead they measured the size of their shoes for two hours. Peter Joseph came off as a wine infused rant artist, whereas Stefan used moot points to unhinge the conversation before it began to get interesting... I thought it was an utter fail of a debate, and largely a waste of time to watch.

I'm no economist, but we can all agree that the situation is messed up. These two have invested many years of their lives to acquire a higher perspective on the technical aspects of the crapstorm encroaching... And this is how they use their time? The level of ego also comes out in their work, sadly.

I'd like to see them return and have a retry, now that they've broken the ice. But they should act less like business competitors if they do.

new topics

log in