[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27739404]There would also be no greed if people were able to get what they wanted. No one would take a car from someone if they could get there own.[/QUOTE]
Disregarding the fact that in an efficiently designed city where public transportation built into the city's layout from the beginning and not built around it, you would rarely need a Car at all.
or any kind of personal transportation bigger than something like an segway, and those can be mass produced round the clock by robotic factories with the most efficient design to do so, so that everyone has one.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27739404]
know your just making assumptions. First I dont believe in a perfect world because there is always something that could be improved on. 2nd you think someone will want a 1000 xboxes for no reason which isnt just useless but it will take up space and time to get them. so no people would not do that. There would also be no greed if people were able to get what they wanted. No one would take a car from someone if they could get there own.[/QUOTE]
If people would want to get what they wanted, why wouldn't they want to take someone else car? Did you forget that we are humans? We want to make ourselves seen by others. If I take someone elses car despite the fact that I could get my very own car people will notice me. People will talk about me around town "Did you hear that he took someone elses property?".
This is called being greedy. I don't want other people to have what I have. I will make it so that if you have something that I want I will take it from you. If you get another one to replace the old one, I will take that from you too.
Soon more people will take up with these actions and the next thing you know the greedy people are running the whole lot and tells what other people should have.
And that 1000 boxes thing you said is total bull. If I had 1000 boxes and you had 10 you would pretty surely be jealous of my box collection and would like to get as many boxes that I have. Materialism has always been a plague and nothing will take that fact away.
[QUOTE=Hullu V3;27740272]
And that 1000 boxes thing you said is total bull. If I had 1000 boxes and you had 10 you would pretty surely be jealous of my box collection and would like to get as many boxes that I have. Materialism has always been a plague and nothing will take that fact away.[/QUOTE]
And this kind of Materialism can, will, and has exceeded any sort of rational or practical need for any of it. seriously what the fuck are [I][B][U]you[/U][/B][/I] going to do with 1000 boxes that is a completely valid application and requires all 1000 boxes.
[QUOTE=Hullu V3;27740272]And that 1000 boxes thing you said is total bull. If I had 1000 boxes and you had 10 you would pretty surely be jealous of my box collection and would like to get as many boxes that I have. Materialism has always been a plague and nothing will take that fact away.[/QUOTE]
You you wanted a box you should have asked. here *click* but really everyone will be able to get boxes. Why would you be jealous of someone who has a box if you can get a box for yourself for free?
[QUOTE=goon165;27740545]And this kind of Materialism can, will, and has exceeded any sort of rational or practical need for any of it. seriously what the fuck are [I][B][U]you[/U][/B][/I] going to do with 1000 boxes that is a completely valid application and requires all 1000 boxes.[/QUOTE]
I think the real target here shouldn't be the uselessness of meterialism, but the cause of it. He's saying it's "just human nature" but that's a cop-out. Intentional or not.
It's definitely behavior that can be stopped if you're raised in the right environment, like the movie said. Thoughts are the structure of, and nature/degree of relations between different sections of the brain.
Once you understand this, as well as how to alter the nature and internal relationships of the brain, getting rid of or altogether preventing unwanted behavior is extremely easy. Just give all the right inputs. We might not know everything about the brain but we at least know how feelings like greed and envy manifest. Neuroscience really needs more funding, though.
"Did you hear that he took someone elses property?". yea and then people called him a bastard and thats it. so he stole my car (you would have to be a total jerk to do that though) but then I could just get another one duh.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27741116]"Did you hear that he took someone elses property?". yea and then people called him a bastard and thats it. so he stole my car (you would have to be a total jerk to do that though) but then I could jsut get another one duh.[/QUOTE]
Right now you're playing right into what he's saying though.
The most important point is, if people were able to make an ideal environment to raise kids, you'd be able to prevent the seeding of greedy or violent behaviors altogether. I'm not going to say we know how to diagnose and prescribe the needed environments for different people's brain types, because I don't know if we know enough with today's neuroscience.
What I do know is that with enough research we [I]would[/I] know. Biological factors are very, very far from uncrackable. The biggest barrier today is funding. Where's the incentive to fund neuroscience in today's global climate? The general population just doesn't have much interest in it, and the only real funding comes from universities and some from government. That's not enough for something so important.
Well I would say that taking out money and allowing any resource to be given for free would already make the environment much better for the average kid being raised. But yea I agree we still need more funding in this kind of thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27738735]Well I skimmed it and read the major parts I dont see anything that has to do with the original art piece vs copies.[/QUOTE]
There are many seemingly counter-intuitive ways in which the mind works. A lot of our behaviors have been shown to come from much deeper structures, either physical or metaphysical.
Individualism is a very strong component of human development. In some cultures it's less emphasized, but it's still there. The desire for originality stems not just from our childhood development. Physiologically, our bodies are designed to detect change. The brain develops signal filtering and processing mechanisms to identify and focus on patterns. We notice changes in patterns and naturally gravitate toward anything unknown.
The same applies to animals during development. They explores the world around them, gaining confidence and mobility with increasing capacity to manipulate their environment. We maintain this sense of curiosity, typically in somewhat diminishing levels as we age.
Take the eye as an example: for the first few months of human development, the brain develops the ability to decipher shapes, such that an infant can recognize faces. This occurs with every definable object and shape in the world around it. When it has sufficiently explored an object, the mind has a pattern associated with that object defined. When presented with similar objects, since the brain already has a pattern for it, there is less exploration necessary to familiarize.
These same principles apply to higher-level abstract concepts. If you were to be exposed to algebra for the first time, you would need some time to absorb the concepts. Subsequently recognizing algebraic equations will not require as much time to decipher.
With video games: if you're a Halo fan and have played every iteration of the series, they're probably now collecting dust (multiplayer notwithstanding). Now what happens if whatever dev studio picks up the Halo franchise comes out with a new saga in that universe, but keeps all of the same characters and storyline? It's highly familiar now, and without enough variation, it becomes a toss-away game.
The rush of brain activity that occurs when encountering a new phenomenon incurs a heavier-than-normal flow of blood to the brain to support neural growth that occurs with the association and learning processes. This feeds surrounding neurons as well, and we generally interpret this vaguely as a pleasant sensation. Thus, we feel good when we are learning (what we learn about also has an impact depending on early development).
Part of the path to addiction lies in habitual reinforcement of neural pathways, resulting in that same increased blood flow which allows the neurons being supplied to strengthen their connections. As always, there's more to the story than just this, but that should be enough to whet your appetite.
If you're truly interested in the way the mind works, utilize the MIT courses, Khan Academy and iTunes U. They're as top-notch as you can get for comprehending the physical way the brain works as well as the emergent psychological behavior patterns.
This is the best audio lecture psychology course I've come across; comprehensive and engaging.
[url]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-00-introduction-to-psychology-fall-2004[/url]
[url]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/[/url]
[url]http://www.khanacademy.org/#Biology[/url]
[url]http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/[/url]
You should also study logic and marketing at a basic level so you can navigate the glitz and glamour of a subtly manipulative world filled with advertising and political speeches.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_communications[/url]
Cool most posters would just say a big fuck you after all the questions I asked but you spent a lot of time with this and got me something to read as well thanks :D
[QUOTE=Agent_Wesker;27739309]Hey miscreanity you are wasting your time arguing with imasillypiggy. He's probably 10 years old and every single reply he posts is not logical or well thought out. Every time you say why it won't work he says "but what if" and so on and so on. (He also doesn't seem to read the majority of your posts)
Edit:
On second thought you are probably just amused from tearing apart his dreams and showing him reality.[/QUOTE]
Willingness and being open to learning can be more important than sheer intelligence.
[editline]29th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27742151]Cool most posters would just say a big fuck you after all the questions I asked but you spent a lot of time with this and got me something to read as well thanks :D[/QUOTE]
Sure thing.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27725582]The "zeitgeist movement" is literally communism with a new, environmentalist paint job.
Problem 1: It's impossible
Problem 2: Creating a world-wide resource based economy requires one world government with infinite power. ...Wait, isn't that exactly what these NWO nutjobs are worried about?
Problem 3: Money only represents property. As long as there are people with more stuff than other people, there will be monetary discrepancies, and thus an economy.
Problem 4: We don't have the resources or technology necessary to achieve post-scarcity, a vital component of the movement (see problem 1.)[/QUOTE]
Haha it's funny you mentioned it was communism with a new paint job. How insanely wrong that is astounds me, because commusim is just the same as every single monetary system on the planet today with a different paint job. This is a whole new system, a completely different approach and concept from the ground up.
It's also funnier because in the video the guy had a whole scene where he jokingly stated how people would call it communism or fascism and defute it for that reason, clearly you missed that part.
Technically it would be more of an anarchy then communism since there would be the government wouldnt be the ones distributing stuff.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27743719]Technically it would be more of an anarchy then communism since there would be the government wouldnt be the ones distributing stuff.[/QUOTE]
True, but it's still a completely opposite direction to what Anarchy proposes. I think assigning a political ideology to it is exactly what the documentary spoke uprightly against, it's the idea of political structure that is rooted in our economic structure, and it's a view we need to shed.
Also to the people who are saying it's not like the conspiracy stuff like before, it very much so is a overall view of that stuff, it explains why the elite are doing as they are, they have created a system and do not which to see it collapse as they'll lose their power, and such the issues of possibility martial law, the removal of human right and liberty and the introduction of absolute survellience of everything people do are all part of the systems collapse, as the end of the documentary showed. I think it gave a greater understanding of why certain powers have acted the way they do in the system.
Well sure they have created a system but it is really just people making a business plan once you think about it. I see it more like people just doing what they can to make money instead of some horrible evil planned out thing.
Yes that's exactly my point this video explains that, it isn't some evil plan at it's centre they're just looking at self-preservation and there ideas stem from the businessess and ideas created from the core structure of the economic system.
[QUOTE=Drax-Quin;27743444]Haha it's funny you mentioned it was communism with a new paint job. How insanely wrong that is astounds me, because commusim is just the same as every single monetary system on the planet today with a different paint job. This is a whole new system, a completely different approach and concept from the ground up.[/QUOTE]
A whole new system? Hardly. There are absolutely no new concepts presented in this film. The Zeitgeist movement is an awkward amalgamation of every feel-good social philosophy developed in the past three hundred years.
As for the communism comparison:
[quote]Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon [b]common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption,[/b] and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[/quote]
[quote]Fresco states that for this to work, [b]all of the Earth's resources must be held as the common heritage of all people[/b] and not just a select few;[/quote]
[quote]Fresco’s contention is that without the waste of resources on ends that would become irrelevant there would be [b]no scarcity of necessary products[/b] such as food and education[/quote]
i.e. the government owns all resources and manages the entire country's needs, everyone is happy because everyone has access to necessities. Some details are different, such as Z.G.'s focus on environmentalism.
Therefore, I'm saying they are the same because [i]they are the same.[/i] I don't give two shits if they predicted this comparison in the film.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27744687]the government owns all resources and manages the entire country's needs,[/QUOTE]
There is no government in the venus project. You call it communism so that way you dont have to find a way that it wouldn't work.
And the non existent government doesn't own anything, not just because it doesn't exist but because everyone has the rights to everything , and no, not in that hollow way that Communism presents it (I.E. as you said the government actually owns everything and the people have no rights too own anything.)
Communism is flawed on paper and as well as in practice because it's essentially becomes a glorified Oligarchy and in some cases a fucking full blown absolute Monarchy under the guise of the wonders of Communism and Socialism, the very things the ideal wants to prevent. This is the inherent problem when you let a small group of the population make all the decisions, eventually they turn into elitist bastards and stop giving a shit about everyone else (whoa generalization.)
The Venus Project states:
[quote][B]We must emphasize [/B]that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.[/quote]
so essentially everyone is governed by themselves and the goal to better humanity as a whole through bettering the lives of themselves and the people around them.
It is the truest form of "Everyone wins" because everyone gets what they want, a better life.
the only people I've seen take this seriously are:
13 year old liberals
useless potheads
nothing short of hilarious
pathetic
Why is it so damn long?
I think this story fits the subject perfectly. I recommend you read it, it's awesome: [url]http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm[/url]
I dont agree with the main point of the video, however I do believe that humans are not naturally evil and it IS just a shitty cop out.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;27748831]Why is it so damn long?[/QUOTE]
They have a lot of stuff to cover,
all of the stuff,
all of it.
The best way to progress right now is to make a floating city completely independent of any nation that is self sufficient and offers essentially completely free food, housing and the like. The people allowed in would have to be those who understand the movement, and when more people ask to live there say "why dont you build one, its not impossible. here are the plans, computer software, and systems to use."
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;27748373]the only people I've seen take this seriously are:
13 year old liberals
useless potheads
nothing short of hilarious
pathetic[/QUOTE]
:sigh:
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
why are the people above trying to define what you would call this state of human life. they defined it in the video quite clearly. Science.
[QUOTE=Robber;27748983]I think this story fits the subject perfectly. I recommend you read it, it's awesome: [url]http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
That's an excellent piece, thanks for sharing. There are points of contention regarding many of the innovations touched on, but those are problems that can only be prepared for. When the time comes, they can truly be dealt with; adapted to, if you like. Or they may turn out to be non-issues. I would still be concerned about overall resource limitations, as even with recycling, there may be barriers that can't be breached.
One of the aspects that seems to be hit on in the story, though peripherally instead of a core subject, is decentralization and redundancy. Both of those concepts preclude systemic failure to the point of massive destruction. Sure, there will be periods of disruption, but nothing so catastrophic that it can't be adjusted and adapted for. Human DNA has a lot of redundancy and 'junk' which study is starting to show may be there to prevent unrecoverable collapse of the biological system.
There's a story that was posted on kur5hin.org a long time ago which detailed the potential of a similar situation with differing results.
[url]http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/[/url]
This would go a long way toward eliminating much of the current centralized power base that provides support for banks and governments.
[url]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4212428/Italian-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-success[/url]
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=goon165;27749136]They have a lot of stuff to cover,
all of the stuff,
all of it.[/QUOTE]
The same topics are repeatedly rehashed. It most certainly did not require nearly 3 hours. There are better documentary films on economics, developmental psychology and future technology than this. They would take about the same amount time to watch, if not less.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;27753027]The best way to progress right now is to make a floating city completely independent of any nation that is self sufficient and offers essentially completely free food, housing and the like. The people allowed in would have to be those who understand the movement, and when more people ask to live there say "why dont you build one, its not impossible. here are the plans, computer software, and systems to use."
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
:sigh:
[editline]30th January 2011[/editline]
why are the people above trying to define what you would call this state of human life. they defined it in the video quite clearly. Science.[/QUOTE]
There were too many half-truths and misconceptions bandied about in the film for it to be anything but propaganda. The science included was pared down to achieve the desired direction the creators of the film wanted, bastardizing both developmental psychology and economics.
The Zeitgeist movement is an exercise in social engineering. It dangles the carrot of wondrous technologies so it can hold attention long enough to spout dreams of perfection without laying down a clear groundwork of how to get there, how it works or how to maintain it. The only solutions it offers boil down to hoping that the path to the end result will magically materialize and work itself out.
I call bullshit.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27755118]
I call bullshit.[/QUOTE]
well could you explain how it wouldnt work? I dont think your the kind of person to say human nature or something like that.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27756684]well could you explain how it wouldnt work? I dont think your the kind of person to say human nature or something like that.[/QUOTE]
It won't work because there's no path to get there. Saying how great things will be in this magical wonderland is completely different from actually transitioning to it.
Besides, for the most part, all of the ideas presented have been achieved except for some of the technologies. It could have been viewed as somewhat visionary 50 years ago, not after it's been attained.
It didn't happen the way it was envisioned; all because of government. Now is not the time for activism or awareness, as there's no fixing the system and no way to get people out of it. If Jacque Fresco & company weren't so busy being self-righteous, they would've spent the past decades working on productive activities.
What's happened in times past is, after the collapse of a major civilization, people self-organized and conducted trade amongst themselves while assuming self-responsibility which all gives rise to self-sustainability. It's a natural process which we happen to call capitalism. By defying natural processes, entropy guarantees that the eventual outcome will be the crossing of a threshold, breaking that resistance.
Do we have robotics that can replace all known human labor? No.
Is there any means for unsupervised computerized management of resources? No.
Can mankind step back and do nothing while having all of his basic life necessities taken care of? No.
Until those questions at the very least can be unequivocally replied to with a resounding 'yes', the Zeitgeist movement and the Venus Project are throwing nickels at tanks.
In the meantime, the real world is still out there. Figuring out how to be productive while minimizing suffering and waste has been the objective of business (exchange, trade, whatever you want to call it) for as far back as human civilization has had recorded history and no idealistic fantasy has ever been able to do anything other than slow that progress.
The United States would have experienced the current situation in the late 1970s to early 1980s if it were not for [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker]Paul Volcker[/url]'s actions. The US was in a much healthier and stronger position then, as was much of the western world, including Europe. Now, the situation has degraded and there is no amount of stimulus or boosting that can save these governments. The ensuing turmoil will cause extensive upheaval, panic and death. The time to effect change has long since come and gone.
Because of the coming catastrophic disruptions, those places which have experienced extreme turmoil themselves in recent history will ironically be the most productive and safest places to ride out the storm. This includes many regions of Africa (eg: Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania), South America (eg: Argentina, Brazil, Chile), Southeast Asia (eg: China, Philipines, Singapore), Oceania (eg: Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand). A few of those are places that have also maintained constructive principles.
Particularly impressive is Somalia's situation as a nation without centralized government, though one has been instituted in the past several years. That concerns me, as the fledgling anarchy might give in to governmental decay despite its impressive growth. Refer to this:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991%E2%80%932006)#Social_organisation[/url]
China is a particularly unique consideration due to its cultural background. This video will give you a sense of why:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw[/media]
The following text is from this book (I recommend reading the entire PDF):
[url]http://libertyactivism.info/uploads/6/65/The_Market_for_Liberty_-_Morris_and_Linda_Tannehill.pdf[/url]
[u]The Force Which Shapes The World[/u]
But a discussion of how government could be dismantled and
how free men could then build a laissez-faire society out of the
pieces still doesn't answer the question, "How do we get there?"
Politicians are politicians because they enjoy wielding power over
others and being honored for their "high positions." Power and
plaudits are the politician's life, and a true politician will fight to
the death ( your death ) if he thinks it will help him hold on to them.
Even the gray, faceless bureaucrats cling to their little bits of power
with the desperate tenacity of a multitude of leaches, each squirming
and fighting to hold and increase his area of domination. How can
we successfully oppose this vast, cancerous power structure? Where
can we find a force strong enough to attack, undermine, and finally
destroy its power?
Some people, gazing up at the fearsome might of the American
Leviathan, have decided that our only hope lies in an eventual armed
revolution. So they work to recruit revolutionaries, provoke a spirit
of aggressive hostility toward The Establishment and promote violent
confrontations with government representatives and police. Most of
these people are quite sincere in their desire to increase liberty by
overthrowing a government which insists on taxing us, regulating us,
and "taking care of us" until it smothers us. Many of them even
realize that we can't have real freedom so long as we have any
government at all. But few, if any, of them have thought through
the necessary implications of violent revolution.
Armed revolutions, whether they occur on a massive, organized
scale or as disconnected, hit-and-run confrontations, are very destructive.
Quite apart from the immorality of destroying the private
property or life of an individual who has not aggressed against you,
destruction is foolish and short-sighted. It often takes years to build
what it may take only moments to destroy; and once destroyed, an
object can never again be of benefit to anyone. Destruction reduces
the total amount of goods available to everyone and, hence, reduces
the welfare of every individual in the society ( naturally, the poor
feel this welfare reduction first and worst ) . The destroyed object can
be rebuilt, but only at the cost of much time, money, and intellectual
and physical effort. It usually will not be rebuilt at all until the
destruction is over so that the builders feel it will be safe. Meanwhile,
the economy (which means all the individuals who try to
improve their lot by trading goods and services with others ) is weakened.
To weaken a healthy economy would be bad enough, but to
bleed our economy-which is already tottering on the brink of
collapse-is suicidal folly.
Not only is violent revolutionary action destructive, it actually
strengthens the government by giving it a "common enemy" to unite
the people against. Violence against the government by a minority
always gives the politicians an excuse to increase repressive measures
in the name of "protecting the people." In fact, the general
populace usually joins the politicians' cry for "law and order."
But far worse than this, revolution is a very questionable way to
arrive at a society without rulers, since a successful revolution must
have leaders. To be slIccessful, revolutionary action must be coordinated.
To be coordinated, it must have someone in charge.
And, once the revolution has succeeded, the "Someone in Charge" ( or
one of his lieutenants, or even one of his enemies ) takes over the new
power structure so conveniently built up by the revolution. He
may just want to "get things going right," but he ends up being
another ruler. Something like this happened to the American Revolution,
and look at us today.
Even if a revolution could manage to avoid setting up a new
ruler, the great mass of people themselves would probably call for
one. Revolution causes confusion and chaos, and in times of distress
and disorder the first thought of the majority of people is, "We must
have a leader to get us out of these troubles!" When people cry
frantically for a leader, they always get one; there's no shortage of
men with power-lust. Furthermore, the leader they get will be a
dictator with power to "restore law and order" in accordance with
the citizens' demands. Unless people know what laissez-faire freedom
is ( and that's the only kind of freedom there is ) , and unless
they know that it is far preferable to a system of governmental slavery,
the odds are that any violent revolution will only pave the way for
a new Hitler. Then we will be far worse off than we are now, because
we will be saddled with physical destruction and its resultant
poverty, with economic collapse, and with a dictatorial state with
popular support.
Knowing the dangers and drawbacks of violent revolution, a few
advocates of laissez-faire have proposed that we get "our people"
into government and dismantle it from the inside. The difficulty
with this proposal is that only men of integrity, who have no desire
to rule over others, could be trusted to dismantle government instead
of joini'1g the power elite once they got into official positions. But
men of integrity could hardly be expected to make the sacrifice
of wasting their lives in government jobs, surrounded by looters. And
once again, if people didn't understand the desirability of a laissezfaire
society, dismantling the government might only confuse and
alarm them into calling for new leadership.
It has also been suggested that the way to win out over government
in the long run is to withdraw all sanction from it and refuse
to have any dealings with it; to avoid voting, accepting government
subsidies, or using government services. The problem here is that
government can compel us to deal with it, either by force of law
or by holding a monopoly on some vital service. You may refuse
to vote, but try refusing to use the government roads and mail system,
to pay taxes, or to be drafted! Withdrawing our sanction from tl1e
looters by refusing to deal with them would be a very effective
tactic . . . if the looters would permit us to do so!
Despair has caused some to decide that the battle, at least in
America, is already lost, and that our only hope of some freedom for
our own lives lies in building a new society on some remote island or in
retreating into a wilderness to escape "Big Brother." Settling and
industrializing a small island outside the tax-grip of any government
( if such a place could be found ) might be an interesting and even
profitable venture, but it's no way to defeat governments. As soon
as the free island became an attractive enough prize, some government
would gobble it up. Founding a free island is not a step toward
victory-at best, it's merely a postponement of defeat.
Similarly, a well-prepared wilderness retreat could be a lifesaving
shelter in case of a really severe socia-economic breakdown,
but "opting out" is no way to defeat governments so we can have
a free and secure world to live in. A retreat is just what its name
implies-retreat, not victory.
The advocates of revolution, of dismantling the government from
within or refusing to deal with it, or of "opting out" have failed
to realize that if one wants to change society, one must first find out
what makes society the way it is. Society is nothing more than a
group of individuals living in the same geographical area at the same
time. The values and the actions of each of these individuals are determined
by the ideas he holds-by what he believes is right or
wrong, beneficial or harmful for himself and others. This means
that the customs, institutions, and life-style of any society are determined
by the ideas held by the majority of influential people in
that society. Just as the form of a man's life is the result of the ideas
he holds, so the form of a society is the result of the ideas which
prevail in that society.
Ideas, even seemingly insignificant ones, can have earth-shattering
results when they are widely believed in a culture. For example,
in the Middle Ages, a minor religious dogma held that cats were
agents of the devil. Since religion was a very important factor in
almost everyone's life at that time, almost the whole society participated
in the religious duty of killing cats. As the cat population
dwindled, the rodent population increased rapidly. The rats carried
the fleas which carried the germs which caused the Black Death.
Between one-fourth and one-third of Europe's people died and
almost one-half of the people of England died within two years, all
because of one stupid, bad idea ( though a seemingly harmless one ) I
Good ideas can be just as powerful as bad ones. The realization
that diseases are caused by micro-organisms and not by demons, the
will of God, or the bad night air, has saved more lives than the
Black Death destroyed. This one good idea has improved the health
and increased the life-span of every one of us. The partial realization
that man has rights which no government is entitled to take
away led to nearly two centuries of the greatest progress and happiness
men had yet known.
Mistaken ideas kept man cowering in superstitious fear of the
gods . . . smeared stone altars with human blood . . . caused living
children to be thrown into sacrificial fires. Correct ideas-the result
of reason-have freed man to stand proud and erect . . . to understand
nature instead of fearing it . . . to achieve a better life for his
children instead of sacrificing them to the gods of his insane fears.
Ideas are the forces which shape our lives and our world!
But because ideas are invisible, most people think of them as
unimportant ( if they think of them at all ) . You can see a city, but
you can't see the multitude of plans that had to be drawn for each
building, each street, each park. Nor can you see the millions of
ideas that made possible the electricity, the automobiles, the supermarkets,
the lawnmowers, the playground equipment, etc. , etc. It's
easy to observe a government ( the bureaucrats won't let you ignore
it ) , but you can't see the idea that makes it possible--the belief in
millions of minds that it's right for some men to govern, or coercively
rule over, others.
Because the forms of men's lives and of their societies depend
on what they believe, ideas are the most powerful force in the world.
If you want to get a man to change his life-style, you will have to
get him to change his ideas about what sort of life-style is possible
to and desirable for him. Similarly, if you want to change a society,
you will have to get the majority of influential people to change
their ideas about what their society can and should be.
In a cannibal sOciety, the reason men eat humar. flesh is that it is
considered proper, or perhaps even necessary, to use human beings
for food. In order to get rid of the cannibalism, it is only necessary
to change the prevailing idea that eating people is proper or necessary.
In a 'governmental SOciety, the reason some men rule over
others is that the vast majority of opinion-molders in that- society
consider it proper or even necessary for men to be ruled by force.
In order to get rid of government it is only necessary to change the
prevailing idea that men must or should be kept in some degree of
slavery by their rulers. In a SOciety dominated by the idea that no
man has a right to govern anyone else, government would be impossible-
no would-be ruler could muster enough gunmen to inforce
his will.
Not only can a society be changed by changing the ideas which
prevail in it, this is the only way it can be changed ( except by enslaving,
impoverishing, or killing all the members of the society in
order to forcibly prevent them from living in the way their ideas
dictate) . Government is only the concrete expression and result
of the prevailing idea that it is right for men to be governed by force.
At present, the American government has the sanction and support,
or at least the apathetic acceptance, of the majority of its citizensubjects.
So long as the majority of men believe that government is
right and/or necessary, they will have a government. If their government
is destroyed before they understand the desirability and
practicality of freedom, they will rush to set up a new one, because
they believe they must be governed in order to have a civilized world.
Until we change this idea, we can never have a free society.
Bringing about a laissez-faire society by changing the ideas
which prevail in our culture may seem like a difficult, centurieslong
task, but opinion-molding isn't really that hard. In any society,
only a very small minority-perhaps one or two per cent-do any
original thinking. A somewhat larger percentage act as transmission
belts, passing the thinkers' ideas on to the rest of the population. The
vast majority of the people simply absorb their ideas from the culture
around them, accepting the word of authorities or the opinions of
their social circle, with little question or thought. In order to change
the ideas in a society, it is only necessary to change the ideas of
the tiny minority of thinkers and then watch while they filter down
through the commentators, writers, editors, · teachers, and all the other
"influential men," to be echoed by everyone else. It is the thinkers
who control a society's future course-Presidents and other poli
ticians are merely the actors who pass across the stage, mouthing
the lines which they have absorbed.
Furthermore, it isn't even necessary to change the opinions of
the men who are our present thinkers. Today's opinion molders are
the remnants of a confused, exhausted, cynical past. Once, their
ideas of a big, fatherly government watching over its citizens, regulating
their economic affairs, protecting them from fear, want, hunger,
pornography, liquor, and marijuana, and insuring their "general
welfare" seemed new and promising. Now, however, the mess of
poverty, slavery, and conflict resulting from their belief in forced
welfare, forced socialism, and forced morality is beginning to become
apparent to all. These thinkers of the past have not only
failed to solve our problems, they've made them incalculably worse,
and because the mess is beginning to stink so badly, their time is
running out. They11 have to make way for a new breed of thinkersfor
the libertarians (mostly young people) who don't have much
influence yet but who will have in just a few years. Many of the
thinkers of the future are already beginning to realize the meaning
and necessity of freedom. When enough of them understand laissezfaire,
the future is ours!
The idea we have to spread is very easy to understand-it is
simply that government is an unnecessary evil and that freedom is the
best and most practical way of life.
Throughout history, most men have considered government to be
a given fact of life-as unavoidable as devastating storms and fatal
illnesses. Of the few who thought about it at all, most concluded that,
while government might be evil, it was a necessary evil because the
nature of man demanded that he be ruled . . . for his own good ( ! ) .
And the majority of men went along with this in an unthinking way
because having a leader seemed to eliminate the awful need of being
responsible for their own lives and decisions in an uncertain world.
So the fear of self-responsibility became a fear of freedom, and rulers
encouraged this by vesting government with all the authority,
legitimacy, pomp and tradition they could muster, while keeping the
populace ignorant and superstitious. We can still see this fear of
self-responsibility in the demands for laws to protect the people
from gambling, drugs, prostitution, misleading packaging, "unfair
competition," guns, "sub-minimum" wages, monopolies, and countless
other imaginary menaces.
But government means some men governing-ruling over-others
by force, and this is what we must tell the people we want to convince.
When some men rule over others, a condition of slavery exists,
and slavery is wrong under any circumstances. To advocate limited
government is to advocate limited slavery. To say that government is
a necessary prerequisite for a civilized society is to say that slavery
is necessary for a civilized society. To sa)' that men cannot protect
their freedom without a government is to say that men cannot protect
their freedom without a system of slavery. Slavery is never
either right or necessary . . . and neither is that form of slavery called
government. We must tell people that government isn't a necessary
evil; it's an unnecessary one.
We must also tell them that freedom, because it is the right way
for men to live, is practical. A laissez-faire society would work, and
work well. The social problems that perplex almost everyone are the
result, not of too much freedom, but of government meddling in our
lives with its compulsions, prohibitions, and ever-growing taxes. We
must tell people that a laissez-faire society wouldn't degenerate into
chaos, that instead it would solve most of our problems. And we must
be ready to show just how such a society would maintain itself and
why it would solve the problems.
There are an infinite number of ways to tell people about libertyas
many ways as there are individual ideas about how to do it. We
can do everything from talking to friends to writing articles and
giving speeches, to organizing huge street demonstrations against
government injustices. Government has a great deal of power over
us, but it doesn't have any right to dictate our actions. This means
that, so long as we are careful not to initiate force against the person
or property of any innocent bystander, we may oppose government in
any way which we consider practical and reasonably safe. If we were
in Russia or China, our tactics would probably have to be quite
different, but in America people are used to a large measure of
freedom of speech, so such activities as the publication of this book
are permitted and still safe.
Fighting goyernment with ideas of freedom has an interesting
built-in safety factor-most of our politicians and bureaucrats, like
most other people, can't see the importance of ideas. What counts
with them is votes, tax money, and political deals. Such esoteric
things as philosophical concepts about the nature of a free society
will never become visible to them until the votes, the revenues, and
the law enforcement begin to be effected; at which point it will be
too late to stop the idea of freedom. If you throw a bomb, the police
will come after you and the terrified public will cry for "law and
order." But if you disseminate a constructive idea, people who are
receptive will catch it, understand it, and pass it on, while the power
structure will blindly ignore it.
To understand the importance of spreading the idea of freedom,
think of what would happen if a majority ( or even a large minority)
of the people in America came to believe that government was an
unnecessary evil and that freedom was the best and most practical
way of life. Already, even with the support of most people, government
bureaus are beginning to creak and falter and break down
under the weight of their own incompetence. The Post Office cries
for help, the courts have such an incredible backlog that "the right
to a speedy trial" is a mockery, jails are packed, roads are crowded,
schools never have enough money, and inflation spirals. Government
is inadequate to cope with the complexities of modern life,
and it's becoming apparent to all but the willfully blind. Along with
this private businesses are beginning to grow in areas which were
formerly the exclusive domain of government. The private mail
delivery company, booming in spite of being forbidden to deliver
first class mail, and private arbitration services and protection agencies
are a hopeful beginning.
In a few years, government will be even more overburdened, confused,
and more obviously inadequate. The progressive breakdown
of many more "governmental functions" will be opening the way for
daring entrepreneurs to gain a foothold and offer superior services to
the public. What if, at the same time, millions of Americans lost
all respect for government? What if they saw government for what
it really is- an annoying and dangerous band of looters, power-mad
bureaucrats, and publicity-hungry politicians? What if the government,
which is supposedly founded on the consent of the governed,
no longer had that consent. What if the governed by the millions
refused to be guilty of consent any longer?
If millions of Americans no longer regarded government as necessary,
they would revoke "the consent of the governed." Then, with
the strength of numbers, it would be quite feasible to refuse to deal
with government and to openly disobey its stupid and unjust laws.
What could the bureaucrats do if 50% of the population ignored
all trade restrictions-including tariffs, price controls, minimum
wage laws, sales taxes, and even oughtright prohibitions? What if they
simply bought and sold whatever they pleased, from gold bullion to
bricks, for whatever prices and under whatever conditions they wanted,
regardless of political regulation? What would the Internal Revenue
Service do if three million of their subjects simply didn't bother to send
in any income tax forms, and what if fifty thousand employers stopped
bothering to deduct withholding taxes?* What could the army do
with a million men who refused to be drafted? What could they do
*In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, 1 was
amazed when he told me that, 'if the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the
Internal Revenue Service operates on 90% bluff, the entire system will collapse'." This
statement was made by U. S. Senator Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma, as quoted from the
printed copy of hearings in the Senate Finance committee on October 2. 1969.
if most of the men in a regiment just quietly quit and went home,
leaving their officers red-faced and screaming behind them?
Such mass scale, passive disobedience to unreasonable laws
wouldn't need to be organized if the majority of people saw government
for what it is and believed in freedom. It would start
secretly and quietly, with individuals doing things they felt they
couldn't be caught for. ( In fact, it already has started . ) But as disre*
spect for government increased, the practice of ignoring laws would be*
come increasingly open and widespread. At last it would be a great,
peaceful, de facto revolt, beyond any power to stop.
If faced with such a massive, peaceful revolt, the government
would have only two choices-to retreat, or to try to impose a tighter
police state. If the politicians decided on retreat, they would be
forced to sit by and watch their powers crumble away, piece by
piece, until their government collapsed from lack of money and support.
If they tried to impose a police state, they would arouse not
only the original revolters but most of the rest of the people as well
to open rebellion. The bureaucrats would find it very hard to whip
up any popular support against people who had done no damage
to any innocent person but were obviously only living their own lives
and minding their own business. At each new repressive measure,
the looters would find their popular support ebbing away, their
armies and police forces torn with dissent and bled by desertion,
their jails too full to hold any more rebels.
In such a crisis, the politicians would almost certainly vacillate.
They have enough tr.ouble making up their minds in ordinary dilemmas.
This policy of vacillation would shake the tottering government
apart even more surely and quickly, leaving the stage open for
freedom.
We can bring about a laissez-faire society, but only through the
tremendous, invisible power of ideas. Ideas are the motive power
of human progress, the force which shapes the world. Ideas are
more powerful than armies, because it was ideas which caused the
armies to be raised in the first place, and it is ideas which keep them
fighting ( if this weren't true, political leaders wouldn't have to
bother with their tremendous propaganda machinery ) . When an idea
gains popular support, all the guns in the world cannot kill it.
Throughout history, the vast majority of people have believed
that government was a necessary part of human existence . . . and
so there have always been governments. People have believed they
had to have a government because their leaders said so, because they
had always had one, and most of all because they found the world
unexplainable and frightening and felt a need for someone to lead
them. Mankind's fear of freedom has always been a fear of se1£-
reliance--of being thrown on his own to face a frightening world,
with no one else to tell him what to do. But we are no longer terrified
savages making offerings to a lightning god or cowering Medieval
serfs hiding from ghosts and witches. We have learned that man
can understand and control his environment and his own life, and
we have no need of high priests or kings or presidents to tell
us what to do. Government is now known for what it is. It belongs
in the dark past with the rest of man's superstitions. It's time for men
to grow up so that each individual man can walk forward into the
sunlight of freedom . . . in full control of his own life!
Could you please explain how it would be impossible to have a transition but a little shorter. I dont have all the time in the world right now to read. So are you saying its impossible to transition because people would be greedy, not enough people would believe in it, the government wouldn't give up there power or something? like I said before sorry I dont I cant read all of it.
I might have time to read it later if its impossible to summarize it.
In short, survival of the fittest with a mix of attempting to manipulate a situation to benefit ones own interests.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
