This is great. The great debate between Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist movement and Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio is going on… I call it great because Peter Joseph seems has a large following, but is just reitterating Marxist idea’s that are against the market. Both persons seem to be against the state though…
Well, does anyone want to react? 
I can’t watch the video right now, did Stefan respond to Peter’s critique or is this just the same videos from before?
I don’t think Marxists understand the concept of time as a resource. It’s probably really that simple.
I was banned by “TZMOfficialChannel” a while back for refuting all of the fallacies associated with their “movement”. Thus I’m not allowed to respond to this ridiculous video.
@Esuric, if you talk about monetary theory and the flaws of central banking or the tenets of basic economies, the standard response is, “you haven’t done enough research” . Either that or, of course, STRAWMAN!
The benefits of talking about a system that is strictly hypothetical is that any potential flaw has a shoddy response waiting. While I think sometimes anarcho-capitalism can fall into that category, at least there is a framework that we can point to in the real world that acts as the basis for all our outlined projections for what an an-cap world could look like: The history of the market and the current market, however deformed as it is, and even the gradual improvement of Somalia. We at least have a framework. TVP is relying on flawed Marxist economic ideas and HAL 9000, neither of which have ever born any tangible fruits in the real world ever.
The problem with this conception of freedom is that, if an an-cap society emerges in a little corner of the planet, the supercomputer will tell its human drones that this little geographic area of anarchy is sucking up resources and limiting the “efficiency” of humans. I can imagine what happens next. It’s these overly-emotional ideologues and daydreamers that probably cause the most destruction on planet earth.
I should note that in my comment above, I’m not against theorizing at all. But I would be hesitant and not so certain in my hypothesis if it has never been tried. The only way to work out all the variables is to test it in reality.
This is the expected response, at least initially. But as you explain basic economic doctrine, which is logically irrefutable, you force them into a corner where they’re forced to deny the obvious in order to defend their untenable positions. Unfortunately, once you successfully do this on the internet, you get banned and they delete all of your comments.
Start posting your own videos, Esuric.
I have one question for these Zeitgeist people: In your moneyless world, will you stop me and my buddies from using our own money system to facilitate trade and specialization? If so, how much violence will you use and how will you exercice that violence on me without becoming a state?
I second this
I got about 2 mins into the video. Its total trolling.
Peter Joseph begins by straw manning the coercion argument.
“Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power.[9] It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of “freedom” the power of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature.[10]” ~ Rothbard, http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.asp
[9] See F.H. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), p. 26.
[10] John G. Vance, “Freedom,” quoted in Leibell, Readings in Ethics, pp. 98-100. Also see Van Melsen, The Philosophy of Nature, p. 236, and Michael Maher, Pschology, quoted in Leibell, Readings in Ethics.
Peter Joesph, fallacy master! I bow down before your illogical greatness! woooooo!
That’s what alt accounts are for.
Peter Joseph:
… My head hurts >.<
I third this
I fourth this.
Wait, this guy’s name is really Peter Joseph? It sounds like some sort of fictional televangelist name.
His name goes perfectly with that of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the famous anarchist who was against capital, state, and church.
Actually, Peter Joseph is himself involved in financial markets; he is a trader who does quantitative analysis. I don’t exactly joke when I say that I think a lot of these investment bankers and private equity people have a certain self-loathing that they counter with doing something the exact opposite of what they otherwise do. Some of them complain about “making too much money for doing nothing”, as one letter to the editor in the recent issue of the Economist demonstrated, and demand their wealth redistributed. Some like George Soros condemn capitalism as evil, even as they continue making money from capital markets. Some like Nassim Nicholas Taleb do social commentary (sometimes about wealth and disparity) right after making millions from trading. Some of them will commit outright fraud, ruin their employer, make millions, get arrested, write a tear-jerker book about how they were country bumpkins taken in by greed and scapegoated by employers, and then get off the court case scott-free, like Jerome Kerviel in France. Peter Joseph? He goes back home after a day of trading and muses on how to make a robotic post-scarcity society.
Prateek Sanjay,
I agree. I also don’t understand why Molyneux would bother any further with people who are mentally deranged. I hope he doesn’t waste any more time.
Somehow, these people who are surrounded by money aren’t “conditioned” by it. It seems that only supporters of the insane project are people who aren’t “conditioned by money” even if their life is dealing in it.