I wonder how Molyneux would respond to the twin studies that showed one pair of separated twins, one becoming an ardent Nazi and the other an Orthodox Jew. That’s become a common theme in psychology textbooks to illustrate the principle that our behaviors are both genetically determined and biologically determined (the two shared many traits and also suggested similar characteristics with regard to adopting radical stances).
There is a gene for Nazism and a gene for Orthodox Judaism?
News to me.
I think it’s learned behavior, one has to also study the environment they grew up in.
I think he was suggesting the possiblity of a genetic predispostion towards “radicalism”.
I’m not familiar with the study, but my first thought is that basing any real conclusions off of odd situations, in this case a singular odd situation, is folly. Nevertheless, you could still look into the types of parenting and life experiences the twins had that could offer further insight instead of jumping directly to genetic predispotions.
I’m thinking genes+family background=personality. Not sure though, although I think to ignore the family background and blame it all on the genes is not a good idea.
Right, I was only saying the consensus suggests that this is common in twin studies, and the Jew/Nazi is the highlighted example. The environment will shape people’s attitudes about the specifics, but the genes may have a large say in determining how sentimental, radical, compassionate, etc. the person is (their personality). At least that’s what those in the know say.
They both liked dunking donuts in coffee if I remember correctly.
If you really want to have fun with them, ask them how they would decide what is the “best” of any good they want to produce. All of Peter Joseph’s nonsense is based on believing that capitalism due to the “cost efficiency mechanism” can never produce anything but cheap junk that breaks. In his economic system only the “best” would be produced utiltilzing the “best” technology can produce using “science”. It is all vague generalities based on his subjective opinion. As an example (cars),
Believer: “…you base the product on overall utility and efficiency. Dont want gps ? dont use it! dont want cup holders dont use them! you arent being charged extra for extra ulitlity, longevity, safety efficency etc. than why not just make it top notch on all those levels?”
Me: “How would the overall utility and efficiency determined? A car that weighs 1 pound would be very efficient but not very safe. Why is this better than what the consumer wants? Right now the market is providing the automobiles people are demanding. If they did not want cup holders an automaker would make a car without them. Unfortunately for your example these are in great demand. If they don’t want GPS, these would be an option (in many case they are).”
Believer: “well we are still discussing this within the confines of this system, first of all there are ways to improve the safety of a car without comramising efficency, sure there are balances that must be arrived at, one needs to calculate what a car must way in order to not get overturned in a gust of wind or by a passing truck or. However some choices people make are based out of a lack of knowledge. if all cars were free who would choose one that is not safe or not efficent?”
Me: “But we are not choosing anymore because you said the cars are not being built based on consumer demand.”
He then changes the subject. Their whole arguments are illogical and naive. Just keep asking them how they would determined the “best” of anything, it is a catch 22 for them.
They got it exactly backwards. Capitalism is efficient precisely because private business use the cheapest materials available. Using the best resources for everything would be a big waste. Sure, it wouldn’t break that quickly, but we’d have so much less of everything.
This whole Zeitgeist movement is new to me and frankly quite sad. I just finished watching all their video’s. I got into a few discussions with them as well that were both hilarious and disturbing. When I pinned them down, they admitted that there are many inexpensive and highly durable goods sold on the market that last for many years, their angst is aimed squrely at consumer electronics and automobiles.
It’s really nothing more than communism with a super computer, but they get very testy when this is pointed out. Although they are unable to explain how it isn’t.
Before Peter Joseph wants everyone to subjugate themselves to the computer, surely the computer is directing Peter’s life right now, so he can show how great it’s working? It must be great not having to work, or at the very minimum do everything super efficiently.
Debating these guys seems as futile as debating people on their religious views (no offense to religious people). They’re unswayed by logic and are so convinced that they’re right that they seem to quickly take offense any time someone dares interrupt their sermons with any kind of reasonable objection. And ironically, they’re the first to label anyone who disagrees with their ideas as “brainwashed”.
I’m not sure if arguing with them serves any purpose. They only seem to be interested in spreading their word and have blinders on to any counterarguments, no matter how devastating.
- I’m not sure if arguing with them serves any purpose. They only seem to be interested in spreading their word and have blinders on to any counterarguments, no matter how devastating.
Like I said before, I don’t know if it’s so much arguing with THEM, but rather just exposing the flaws in thier plans publicly. I’ve had a few people mention the films in passing. Kind of like exposing Scientology, although admittedly Zietgiest isn’t THAT ridiculous. The Venus Project might seem plausible to your average layman who doesn’t know much about economics, computer science, etc. It’s something that SOUNDS good to the average joe, but doesn’t work in reality, kind of like Marxism.
I, too, think it’s a good idea to expose the flaws in their movement. If you go to sites like 4chan, you’ll see that many, many young people are interested in it. I’ve never really listened to Stefan prior to seeing this video, but I do like how he brings up how it’s nothing new and that the Austrians have already laid out the defeating arguments long ago.
I was pushed towards libertarian sources through watching Zeitgeist. These people are just looking for answers and there are well over ten million of them. Don’t give up on converting the Zeitgeist crowd. Its a win-win situation because even if Peter Joseph refuses to argue, his supporters will be forced to think and reevaluate their position
FYI, Looks like Stefan will be doing an interview with V-Radio, an internet radio show focused on discussing the Venus Project and all that jazz:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio/2011/02/07/stefan-molyneux-of-freedomain-radio-interview
From the looks of that, he has a full hour. Should be interesting and give him plenty of time to directly respond, and hopefully elaborate.
“Don’t give up on converting the Zeitgeist crowd.”
I agree with Kenneth here. I think it’s easier to convert those to libertarianism who already hold radical views. Just keep blasting them with economics - an above poster for example showed how they’re benefiting from division of labor right this very second. Even asking “who will do the shitty jobs in the VP paradise” runs them into a corner. Talking about money forming out of the difficulties of barter seems to take the emotion out of “money is the root of all evil,” which most people (not only these commies) seem to accept.
Most people I know that are hard to talk with are the “middle-grounders.” They reject outright communism and laissez-faire for the same reason- because they’re too “extreme” and thats it. I guarantee every time you see these Venus Project guys squirm and avoid your points you have given them something to think on, and down the road they and others reading these arguments might just start looking into the ideas of liberty.
^Very true. If you talked to me 6-7 years ago, I was a Truther and a socialist
I third the notion that they are radicals in search of answers. They are fertile ground. All they need is be shown clear to a few basic economic realities. I, Pencil them.
You know what lol, I’m not even gonna bother with these people anymore.
Peter Joseph think Economics is not a science. I’ve been reading some weird things online and I’m slowly accepting that some people are delusional. Now I understand why Ayn Rand didn’t enjoy debating people.