My vision is freedom. And yours?

Under the article Capitalism and Zeitgeist he wrote to me interesting comment a man nicknamed "BCL" writing a blog Imbecyl.blogspot.com. I reacted to it - and I bring you this reaction here in a separate article.

Ikonka - Svoboda
Ikonka - Svoboda

BCL wrote:

I do not agree with what you have written here and I am convinced that you are already wrong in the very essence of the matter. Man in today's world (not only in our country) is not able to "live his life". Influencing the current system of values, inclusion in social structures and the geopolitical aspects of living fundamentally change people's lives without them being directly aware of their impact. In other words, most people do not know the potential of their lives because they did not even have the opportunity to know it due to these influences. The system of "modern capitalism" deepens the impact of these negative aspects on selected strata of society.

On the other hand, I admit that I do not yet know of any system that can solve this problem perfectly. It also remains true that the basic principles of capitalism contain some elements that are not entirely reprehensible. However, their current application, which is aimed mainly at profit, not at the needs of individuals, is a step significantly outside the tendencies that, in my opinion, the community of people should take.

I believe that current capitalism needs to be changed or developed into another form of community. Unfortunately, at the moment I have no idea what. So I don't know the answers and that's why I try to continue my studies and continue my search.

As you probably already understand, I'm not even a follower of Zeitgeist. Nevertheless, I believe that this movement also has its positive potential. I see its benefit mainly in the potential of opening my eyes to other possibilities. People need to know that there are potentially other options. This makes them freer and more conscious. However, Zeitgeist also does not offer a complete solution and, within certain limits, could be a step backwards.

@BCL:

"Man in today's world (not only in our country) is not able to 'live his life.' Influencing the current system of values, inclusion in social structures and the geopolitical aspects of living fundamentally change people's lives without them being directly aware of their impact. In other words, most people do not know the potential of their lives because they have not had the opportunity to know it because of these influences. The system of "modern capitalism" deepens the impact of these negative aspects on selected sections of society. "

You're right. In nationalized education, there is no innovation in teaching and the required diversity of disciplines. People are forced to believe the only "truths" of the state, because the promoters of "marginal" ideas are either forbidden or do not get into the media (each state has its own RRTV). Artificial state manipulation of basic interpersonal information (prices) through the interest rate makes us unaware and forces us to do activities we would not otherwise do. I completely agree with you, except that this is not capitalism. We live in corporatism, which was one of the "components" of fascism. A certain form of socialism.

"I believe that current capitalism needs to be changed or developed into another form of community. Unfortunately, at the moment I have no idea what. "

Your search is in vain. We can't search The "world order" that should be. We then act as a central planner, the absolute ruler of the people, telling them how they should live. If in self-sufficient communes, a global "state", a world without property, etc. - It's still the same. Dictation.

However, I also have a certain vision of the future that I would like to achieve. Since no one knows what "world" would suit all people, let people make their own world. Let us get rid of aggression (now monopolized in the state) and give ourselves the right to defend ourselves against foreign aggression. Let people decide on their lives and the fruits of their lives (their possessions) as they see fit. Let's give people the freedom to create their own better future.

And yes, that's my vision. My vision is freedom, what is yours?

If my vision is freedom, it would be most wrong to construct better worlds. After all, no one knows how someone will behave tomorrow, let alone say how people will behave in the distant "better future".

We can say this only at the moment when we want to order people to behave. But it is no longer freedom, it is no longer my vision.

My vision is often called capitalism. It is often confused with today's corporate socialism and interventionism. I say it quite simply: freedom.

BCL:

@ Lukáš Kubec: Maybe you're right that I'm kind of looking for a world order. But I'm not looking for something to tell people how or not to live. I am looking for something that would allow people to live "freely" and fully develop their personal potential. Basically something similar to what you tried to outline in your commentary, but more distant from the original idea of ​​capitalism. The problem, however, is in the word "freely." His understanding is so different in so many people, and yet it expresses essentially a similar desire. But it is also possible that the word "freedom" is still just a kind of forerunner for us. We still do not know its true essence.

I think that such a search is never unnecessary. Even if the end is never over, the very search for a person opens up new possibilities that he did not even dream of at first. This in itself "liberates" the person.

@BCL:

If you are looking for a substitute for capitalism, you have to come up with something that goes against human property rights. That is, to something that is a direct attack on human life and human freedom. And if one does not have freedom, one cannot develop because one cannot (decide on oneself).

The search for an artificial order for "everything" is always a dictation if it violates people's property rights. Just like today. Like any form of socialism.

To let people be and let them develop, to let them decide and leave them free means to let them own the right and let them exchange freely - to let people have capitalism.

0 comments

  1. 1) WHAT IS THE STATE?
    - http://www.mises.cz/literatura/anatomia-statu-13.aspx in Slovak

    2) HOW did it actually originate historically and how does it now work in relation to capital? HOW does capital work in relation to the state?
    - dtto.
    - capital is too broad a concept, but in general the state greatly reduces the formation of capital in comparison with the state that would have occurred if the state did not exist.

    3) WHO do you think represents the interests?
    - your own. like everyone always and everywhere.

    4) WHY is he still here, what forces keep him alive? Why didn't he go to the dustbin of history a long time ago :-))
    - the period of the state is not so long. I personally believe that our descendants will be in history about the "statuette". it will come. it's like a question to a slave group "why do you advise your slave slaves?". because a lot of people like it, a lot of people don't know about it.

    5) HOW to help him to go to the dump and WHAT instead? :-)
    - Nothing. wake up nothing.

    puzzle)
    - I do not know the interest of society. what is the interest of the company? I would be interested - or should humanity, so that you cannot say that every society has a different, humanity is only one and the other question - how do you know that it is the interest of humanity?

  2. "The system is a specially organized set of elements that interact with each other materially, energetically and informationally. The internal connections between them are more powerful than the external connections, and accordingly you will know where the boundaries between the system and its environment are. ”

    I agree with that and it is not ruled out. Element file. One cannot be without the other. But each element decides for itself. Therefore, if I want to disappear (right to my death), they must cooperate arbitrarily.

    "HOW could freedom of governance be combined to complement each other and in the interests of both individuals and society?"

    If you control or decide only about yourself and other things with their permission, then it is freedom. Any other control is unfree, and then you combine freedom with non-freedom.
    If everyone drives only

  3. MARYO:

    Many z You have probably heard something about the theory of (self-organizing) systems. It is a theory founded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, which basically says this:

    1) The whole world is a feedback system. Natural as well as social.

    2) The system is a specially organized set of elements that interact with each other materially, energetically and informationally. The internal connections between them are more powerful than the external connections, and accordingly you will know where the boundaries between the system and its environment are.

    3) The system has so-called emergent qualities, which means that its properties CANNOT be reduced to the properties of the individual elements of which it is composed (at this point there is a weakness of considerations that reduce human society ONLY to the level of individual human beings. your important concept of individual freedom). System qualities in society manifest themselves as group and universal needs and interests, the existence of which you seem to question. I say otherwise: There are both individual and group / universal needs and the latter, in accordance with systems theory, cannot be reduced to individual needs even if they are based on them. However, the situation is more complicated: not only do individual needs influence group / universal needs, but vice versa, there is feedback between them. Therefore, your concept of reducing society to a mere set of interacting individuals somehow does not fit me. You abstract from emergent social phenomena and thus, from my point of view, your view becomes one-sided.

    4) In order for a system to exist, it must, with the help of its local and global feedbacks, REGULATE itself and its relationship to its environment, with which it creates a TOTAL to keep within certain limits that provide it with (dynamic) balance / stability. If he fails to do so, he gets into a crisis and it basically has 2 solutions:

    (a) either the system moves to a different level of equilibrium
    b) or expires

    Our approach and analysis of the current social situation as well as the design of starting points is consciously based on the theory of systems / self-organizing units applied to the processes of CHANGE…

    Therefore, we go beyond "left" and "right" solutions as one-sided, insufficient and offer system solutions that seem to you to be "complex" (Kosik…). Yours seem simplistic to us (you use simplistic reality models) and therefore we have strong concerns, that they could be if they were accepted as you suggest them only by going from the rain to the gutter (if you understand this Slovak metaphor). Just one one-sidedness (state) is to be replaced by another one-sidedness (free market).

    We try to overcome the one-sidedness of known solutions. No matter what resounding names stand behind them. But this will be our next debate :-)…

    I have a "puzzle" for you:

    HOW could freedom be combined with management so that they complement each other and so that it is in the interests of individuals and society? :-)

  4. … And I would have one additional question for you, in the form of "big five" questions :-):

    1) WHAT IS THE STATE?
    2) HOW did it actually originate historically and how does it now work in relation to capital? HOW does capital work in relation to the state?

    3) WHO do you think represents the interests?

    4) WHY is he still here, what forces keep him alive? Why didn't he go to the dustbin of history a long time ago :-))

    5) HOW to help him to go to the dump and WHAT instead? :-)

    Thanks:-)

  5. Tyjo, it's a good start here…

    "Aren't you suggesting that there is no such thing as a group interest? But then you would have to refute the whole of modern psychology and sociology and I will tell you, that would be a real chore "

    It seems logical to me… I don't know if it refutes something… If something exists as a group interest, then only as a simplified concept for a set of common individual interests. "

    "The human body is made up only of cells, no organs exist and in fact not even that body (metaphorically representing the human interest)"

    Well, those organs consist of just those cells… Actually, you're a little right about it, maybe they are already interested in the cells themselves and communicate with each other until it somehow gets into the brain to But it's a series of individual interest I would say those cells, I'm not a biologist…

  6. Dominik: I saw the whole series. She is great.

    (btw. right now I'm learning about the optimal duty and when the "big" economy pays to introduce customs duties and similar nonsense. I definitely suffer here…)

    And I've heard a little about van Dun a few times, but I haven't read it yet. (maybe I'll get to it after the tests)

  7. Dominik: "Freedom is a state where there is no violence against a person. On the nature of ad universal morality, I would like to recommend some text or video. "

    Can you recommend? I've read and seen something, but maybe you have something better 🙂

  8. prometheus: I think well said 🙂

    "If the state did not interfere with economic and social relations between people, they would adjust spontaneously and everything would work in the best possible way (what is the best possible way, will you specify?)."

    That's right, the "best possible way" is a rather vague label. I would specify it as follows: the most moral (because no one has the right to initiate violence) + from the point of view of society as a whole economically efficient (increasing standard of living)

    "Capitalism in its pure form, without corporatism (is not corporatism the result of the development of capitalism? I ask)"

    This is where the stumbling block of state capitalism is. If there is a state that makes laws and has the right to enforce them by force, there will always be a tendency for concentrated interest groups to gain benefits for themselves through the state apparatus at the expense of all others, and this tendency will be much stronger in a democracy. And this, in my opinion, is one of the main reasons why state capitalism is always doomed to failure sooner or later (just look at developments in the United States from its inception to the present). You're probably going to agree here, aren't you? Or would you say otherwise?

  9. Well, a little surprisingly, you got it. I am even pleased with the remark that capitalism has a natural potential to REGULATE. Which is extremely true, and many proponents of a free society do not understand it (the word is probably classified as discredited).

    Perhaps I would emphasize that not everyone has the same opportunity to gain ownership of production resources and resources. The world is so-called "unjust." Because the mere fact that we are born each with a different fingerprint or each at a different time in a different place distinguishes us (and thus "disadvantages" some), we can never find another "equality" than equality in freedom. Any attempt at a different equality "so that we all have the same money, we are in the same place or we all have the Internet" naturally meets with failure, and even more, has the exact opposite effect.

    Freedom is a state where there is no violence against a person. About the nature of ad universal morality, I like to recommend some text or video.

    I don't know what is the best possible way (your next question) and it is the essence that we do not know. Competition (capitalism) is minimal (and I quote Hayek) the best way to find out what's best if I don't know in advance what the best is. And it is not true that "mass" will win, etc.… But this is another debate.

    Corporatism is a rather vague concept, but as I understand it, it is linked to politics. Which is in itself anti-capitalist, because politics is a decision about a stranger. So no.

    And what I would add is the emphasis on the price system. Prices are information about rarity, and any crisis is the result of violently disrupted information. This is precisely the reason why socialism cannot function in any form, because it cannot obtain real information. Communism, then, cannot obtain any information.

    Finally, in connection with your last paragraph, I would probably add that capitalism is a system that is still running here. We are now exchanging information, paying for our time, and at the same time giving us the information that we like it better than anything else, for which in my case the money of the Philips monitor, Asus computer and electricity supplier and many more and thousands of unknowns and unimaginable people. It runs and must run, because it takes place naturally with every human action. The question remains, how much more socialism can it bear.

  10. So… Dominik, Kosik, others… Let me give you a brief summary and see me if I understand you well:

    You are basically saying this:

    Capitalism is the NATURAL state of human society, which best corresponds to the individual nature of man and that is freedom (I just do not know what you mean by natural and I am not quite sure about that freedom :-).

    This natural state is disturbed by a superior authority, which has the form of a state, which in a Violent way enters the natural relationship of naturally free people and distorts these relationships. The result is problems of all kinds, including environmental, economic, social katastrof crises and disasters.

    If the state did not interfere with economic and social relations between people, they would adjust spontaneously and everything would work in the best possible way (what is the best possible way, will you specify?).

    You understand capitalism as a natural economic system that corresponds to the (inner) nature of people and therefore does not need to be forcibly introduced into society. Everything we need can be expressed by the equation: capitalism - state interventionism = solution.

    Capitalism as an economic system is based on the private ownership of the means of production and the means to which everyone has (equal) opportunity to access, on the basis of his honest work. Everyone has the right (on the market) to freely offer their goods and services and will receive for them a fair equivalent, which corresponds to the equation dal = received. Competition is a fair measure of performance, and if for any reason it is not competitive - it will take care of it: capitalism (without artificial state intervention) is naturally, by its very nature, in solidarity with the unproductive (less productive) part of the population and has the tools to take care of her fairly.

    Capitalism in its purest form, without corporatism (isn't corporatism the result of the development of capitalism? I ask) and state interventions, has a natural potential to REGULATE ecological, economic, political, social and cultural relations so that they are in accordance with the freedom of as many people as possible. all those involved in the process of capitalist production). It also reliably ensures the development and balance of natural and social processes.

    Everything except pure capitalism (expressed in the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism) is unnatural, and therefore it can have only one consequence: PROBLEMS AND CRISES. Unfortunately, pure capitalism does not exist here, nor did it exist (we only have various forms of socialism = the state here), so then we cannot be surprised that we are in a real mess.

    Did I forget something that is important to you? Would you put it another way?

  11. to Peaceful: Just briefly: under "pure capitalism" I imagine anarcho-capitalism, an organization of society based on the following rules:

    - NO ONE has the right to initiate violence
    - everyone has the right to legitimately acquired private property, starting from self-ownership (and by that I legitimately mean either the appropriation of things not yet owned, own production, or voluntary exchange)

    that is all…

    As Dominik wrote, it is a system that does not have to be forcibly introduced, built bud In our opinion, it is the natural state of society that deviates and destroys the existence of the state as a monopoly on the initiation of violence.

    And as you can see in promethea, his vision is based on many assumptions that I think are unfeasible.

    To those in need: A simple answer: voluntary charity. Until the state began to engage in the social field, voluntary charity, as far as I know, worked normally and effectively. By this I effectively mean that the help only reached those who really needed it and not as it does today. I wouldn't really worry about that, just look at how much money the rich are currently giving to charity, even though there is a state social policy.

  12. "These people have in common that they have, temporarily or permanently, a reduced to zero ability to create value that they can exchange for profit in the market. So my question is, how would pure capitalism cope with their existence, what attitude would it take towards them (do you think it should have taken place)? "

    The alibi advantage of a free society is that we do not know what it will look like. This stems from the whole problem of such disputes between systemic "creationists" and systemic "evolutionists." The former, led by French philosophers, say that man has so-called positive rights (the right to life, to work, to the Internet - just to be defined) and the latter, led by English philosophers, say that man has so-called negative rights (dont fucking mess with my stuff!). In the first system, then, one can answer "a person has the right to work under the age of 85" the other "every child has the right to dignified parents", while in the second I will not tell you much about it…

    But certain laws in the society will willingly work. One of them is mass unemployment caused by the state. If a 70-year-old wants to make money, he can't. And I don't mean the job of a miner or the job of a driver. By this I mean the fact that today (due to state regulations) there is no motivation to even try as an old / disabled employee, because if an employee subsequently wants to fire him, he will have more worries than the potential benefits that both would gain from joint cooperation. By monopolizing a huge part of society, from transport, through health care, to less obvious areas such as culture, the state is raising unemployment en masse. No one in the United States who does not speak English may be a doctor. I can imagine that, as an immigrant, I would like to work in the United States as a doctor and take my grandfather or a disabled friend with me as a translator. Why not? These are endless possibilities, which are killed mainly by the monopolization of state branches and labor law regulations.

    And what about children? Children are much more productive than adults in terms of treatment; the state just reduces their productivity in a huge way by paying for state compulsory school attendance. And more and more rules that they are not allowed to work (the state protects them!).

    Another fact is that today's sensible people who think about the world many times come to the conclusion that "such a beautiful traditional family is falling apart." Yes. But it's all about incentive motivations. Today we have no reason to think about our children. When something happens to them, we climb in front of the barracks and start shouting "State, HELP!" I suppose the family could (but God knows) be a strong starting point (and it's no coincidence that for tens of thousands of years it was the most successful model). "Unproductivity" of young children.

    I would speak for a long time, but perhaps I managed to outline the fundamental difference between free access and that of others. For me, for groups of solar state devotees to raise children in mass crèches by professional nannies… But let them not force me to send my children there. And so it is with everything.

  13. Well guys, I'm starting to like our debate :-) Thanks for understanding that I didn't come here as your enemy but as a person who wants to think with you about what the problem is and what might happen to it. could do. I repeat that I do not mind the diversity of our opinions, the important thing for me is that we listen and try to understand each other…

    So may you prosper friends :-)

  14. I follow this interesting debate and think about what it is like that both sides, which have sensible and strong arguments, are passing each other.

    One of the things, in my opinion, is that there is no common ground in this debate, no one has made enough effort to describe in detail their idea of ​​society. However, Prometheus describes his idea in great detail on the pages he mentioned in his posts, I recommend reading. On the other hand, I have no idea what the friends mean by "capitalism." The author of the article made it clear that today there is no capitalism, but so-called "socialist interventionism and fascist corporatism." elements. It is therefore just a "vision", just like Prometheus' vision of a sustainable society.

    My question is whether anyone could describe in detail how this system would work. By not defining who means by what term we are getting to a standstill, I'm about the car, you about the goat. Because of this, everything is possible, such as the fact that the idea of ​​a so-called "sustainable society" and a so-called "capitalism" are very close to each other as concepts, but we will never find out unless we define them. Of course, they can also be very far apart, but at least we will know.

    Kosik: "What I'm reading here so far seems like a nice-sounding vision to me, but it's just a utopia, and if it were ever put into practice, it would end in disaster (like all other such utopian visions)."

    @Kosik: But this may be true of the idea of ​​capitalism, as no one has really tried it in pure form.

    Nor do I agree with the form of the social system we have here today, with what the state is doing. On the other hand, have any of you wondered whether the state, in addition to preventing the development of pure capitalism, does not happen to maintain such social cohesion, and after its demise, there will be more or less disintegration of the social order? That is why I wonder how you imagine pure capitalism in which the state and no other entity would interfere by force so as not to violate freedom in the market.

    One final question: In our society, there are also the following groups of citizens: people of pre-productive age - from newborns to non-working students, unwanted children, people of post-productive age, senior citizens, the so-called unemployed, mentally undisturbed individuals, mentally ill, people with sudden health disorder, handicapped individuals…. What these people have in common is that they have, temporarily or permanently, a reduced to zero ability to create value that they can exchange for profit in the market. So my question is, how would pure capitalism cope with their existence, what attitude would it take towards them (do you think it should have taken place)? The question is also relevant because the percentage of mainly senior citizens is constantly growing. And if one takes on that difficult task and defines what capitalism should look like, that is one of the questions one must encounter in the process.

  15. Hi Kosik :-)

    how are you What about your preparations? :-)

    Yes, you are right: The vision of an RBE civilization of a sustainable type can seem like a utopia at first. It is so different from everything we are used to that it looks unrealistic.

    In the RBE civilization, there will be no state and no capital :-) No one will collect taxes and no one will have to produce a profit or get a job in order to have everything he needs materially and to be individually free.

    The condition for the emergence of RBE civilization is such a high level of development of production (based on hi-tech) in accordance with the ecologically carrying capacity of the Earth, that material sufficiency for everyone and everyone, on a global scale, will be a matter of course. Modern production (automation, cybernatization, artificial intelligence…) is a real, not a utopian step leading in this direction. The question is, how do we make this high production capacity available to everyone? If you imagine the trend of the development of science and technology into consequences, it is quite possible that one day people will not have to work at all to make a living (production can be done by modern science-based technology) but will be active simply because they want to realize their individual talent and in the sense of voluntary activities to help where necessary (human solidarity).

    A person freed from the need to work for money (a guaranteed right of all, a right based on hi-tech production and distribution of resources and services) will fully develop his individuality, whose core, in accordance with the findings of modern psychology, is CREATIVITY and SHARING, symbiotic competition and cooperation.

    The era of resource scarcity (some today have a surplus while others live in inhumane conditions) in which people are due to lack of resources (which you can only access today with money) will bring the individual more than today's economic, political, cultural, social, etc. … Confrontation, the fight "who from whom".

    In addition to high hi-tech production, other key conditions are a necessary condition for the change we are proposing. In my opinion, these also include the following:

    1) High level of general education and information.

    2) The company's decision-making processes must be based on qualified and not political decisions and solutions.

    3) The social basis of humanity will be a self-governing organization at the local, regional, continental and global levels.

    5) The basic values ​​will be:

    (a) a holistic approach to life
    b) ecological approach
    c) humanism, which we understand as

    - creativity
    - freedom
    - cooperation
    - responsibility

    d) the application of the scientific method and professional approach as the main aid in the self-organization of civilization

    e) transparency of all social processes

    In short, this is the strategic goal of the Change Movement. BETWEEN the current monetary system, which we believe suffers from serious systemic errors (but this will be a different debate), and the RBE civilization is INTERMEDIATE. It is a time in which we live today and which we call a transitional period. The transition period will be a kind of hybrid in which the current monetary system will be interconnected with the resource economy and in which it will be quite PRACTICALLY and not theoretically to show what the future belongs to. A similar process occurred a few centuries ago when capitalism began to establish itself in what was then feudal Europe as a new approach to life…

    And to my IQ :-) Such a high IQ is not a condition for a person to be creative and productive :-) It seems important to me that creative ideas may come with them ANYONE can become a cultural heritage of all mankind and that their potential be used in the interest individuals as well as communities.

    It is true: that free individuals can agree intelligently so that this agreement is for the benefit of all parties involved, that it is mutually beneficial and does not harm anyone. It takes a different level of communication to which we are accustomed today. Is it real? Modern psychology gives a clear answer: it is real! Go through training in community relationships, develop your emotional intelligence, ability to actively listen, solve interpersonal problems and conflicts in the spirit of strategies and win-win techniques… and you will have your own experience. However, man himself, as an individual being, must be willing to change and see that in the new economic and "political" conditions (politicians will not exist in today's understanding) cooperation will bring him more than competition and confrontation in which some gain and therefore others lose. …

    No one will do our own work for ourselves, so: every change starts from the inside :-)…

  16. to prometheus: I should learn, but this debate is more interesting than crazy theoretical models in international economics.
    As you wrote about the material law of every human being. What exactly do you mean. As I understand the term "human right to something", it must always be universal and valid in all circumstances, including any historical time. "Substantive law" does not fulfill this in any way. It is certainly nonsense to talk about material law somewhere in antiquity, where the vast majority of people just survive in absolute poverty. It follows that your material right can only be from some arbitrarily chosen moment of maturity of society. But that seems absurd to me.

    To claim that everyone has a material right is a very but very strong statement that has far-reaching consequences. What exactly does that mean? Who will determine it? How will it be secured? etc.… Among other things, this implicitly results in the initiation of violence and forcible transfers of assets from one group to another. Isn't that so?

  17. Prometheus: You wouldn't believe it, friends and acquaintances turn to me who have seen "money as debt" or zeitgeist and ask me a little suspiciously - what's the problem? So I have several debates behind me, but give me a moment, until the end of the holidays, and I will try to show you what the problem is and why your system is destined to fail. In essence, however, it will be nothing wiser than Mises's "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Community."

    I argue that the Zeitgeist can be rejected on three levels:
    1) The goals and the system you are proposing are incompatible with violence and run counter to universal morality.
    2) Even if we do not agree on the definition of violence and you do not consider universal morality to be a fundamental principle, I argue that it cannot achieve the goals that your movement sets itself through the system it proposes. This is due to some internal contradictions and misinterpretation or absence of some social laws.
    3) However, even if he did not reach them, it could be the best possible "variant". However, I argue that it can be shown that those goals can be achieved differently.

    Therefore, I do not attack the targets, but I claim that it can be shown that this is not the way to them. But I'm happy to do it and I believe that it will be to the benefit of us all. And even if not, at least I can still refer to the finished article 🙂

  18. to prometheus: One more thing - Your mention of IQ reminded me of Hayek's "pretence of knowledge." I have no doubt that many thinkers who wanted to change society were very intelligent, and it just occurs to me that it is a stumbling block. Such an intelligent person looks at society and thinks that he could manage it better.

    If he stays with the advice only, if he acts as a "natural elite," that is, the natural authority on whose people people take advice, then everything is fine. But if he gets to the head of the state and tries to force these councils on people, then it will end in disaster.

    Well, it just occurred to me now…

  19. to prometheus: What I read here so far, it strikes me as a nice-sounding vision, which is a mere utopia, and if it were ever put into practice, it would end in disaster (like all other such utopian visions).

    One more short question: What is the role of the state in your vision? Forcibly collecting taxes, yes or no?

  20. Hi to you too, Dominik :-)

    above all: Let the completion of your studies work without any problems :-) When I finished my VS studies, I had it "a bit complicated" :-) Because I was not in accordance with the "official line", I received an exemplary "punishment": just, that I passed (allegedly with both eyes closed :-)) and with regard to my past (I was the best student of the decade during my entire studies). Since then, I said goodbye to the "official" lines, whether left or right, and went my own way.

    Let me tell you something else: I have about 1 books at home and, according to IQ, I am one of the smartest 500% of people walking around the planet. Although I am a professional in my field, I am also a self-taught person who is interested in almost everything and tries to get an overall picture of how man and the world work. I was in several groups and therefore I know a wide range of opinions on what is true and what is not :-) Finally, I came to the conclusion that the truth is the whole and the whole view is the truth, and I stick to that to this day.

    I did not come here to "rip" or convince you of "my" truth. I am not "recruiting" the new Movement of Change among you. I just wanted to get to know you, because I got the echo that there was someone who wrote the bold contribution "Capitalism and the Zeitgeist."

    So let's summarize:

    If there is an interest in listening to each other, and not just showing off, I will be happy to continue the dialogue with you and I also invite you to our site and forum. http://www.zeitgeistmovement.sk

    Is this acceptable to you, to you?

  21. @prometheus

    "We want a world that is considerate of nature and in which EVERY person has (just because he is human) REAL and not guaranteed on paper material and spiritual rights that allow him to be a fully human being."

    Probably no one will object to this goal. It is a goal like any other. We're just asking you how you want to achieve this. For example, how do you want to achieve "real material rights". What does it mean to "have real material rights"? Does this mean that everyone must be provided with food and accommodation? Who will provide it? If someone is to have the right to eat without moving a finger, then that means that someone else must be obliged to procure the food. If you mean by "real material law" that no one should stop you from procuring food, then it is nothing more than a ban on the initiation of violence, and thus the old familiar anarcho-capitalism.

  22. @prometheus

    "If people who want a change of circumstances can't even agree on the basic framework of such a change, when different groups still emphasize their different views in particular, then tell me what miracle things will move for the better?"

    Well, that's exactly my question to you. I ask you how specifically people with different worldviews should agree.

    I gave you the example of five people with land. These are undoubtedly both individuals and the collective. They are now standing helplessly in front of the land, asking you what to do. How should they resolve this conflict?

  23. Hi Jindřich, I greet you :-)

    yes yes yes what you write is one of the possibilities. Do you see others? Check out our site and forum http://www.zeitgeistmovement.sk and check if I belong to the people who run out of arguments and are not in the picture :-) Try it :-)

    I offered something else here, and it seems to me that you overlooked it. I offered the question: How can we listen to each other, try to see the problem through the eyes of the other without trying to "break through" the arguments right in the first round? I have enough arguments, don't worry :-) but I offer you and others a different approach, which is not primarily about strong and weak arguments of one or the other party but about willingness to lead an intelligent discussion in spite of obvious differences in which I respect the opponent and do not need to prove it at all costs how stupid he is and how he runs out of arguments :-)

    You know, as do I, that the power of arguments is also a subjective thing. What may be a strong argument for me in favor of my conclusions may not have any objective meaning for you, and vice versa. So, what do we do in this situation? Will we beat ourselves with arguments or will we treat each other with respect and dignity and try to learn something from each other?

    And a brief note on the emerging Movement of Change. As its representative, I would appreciate it if you would first read more about us (you have a link) and only then raise reservations. However, I come across a different approach here: You know almost nothing about us and you are already "labeling" us as the OTHER (not ours) who are dangerous, because they deny individual freedom of man, even worse, who want to introduce another form here, socialist? dictatorship :-)

    We do not hide the fact that we are coming, of course according to us :-) with a different approach, which is neither "left" = socialist nor "right" = capitalist and is not a mechanical sum (in terms of convergence theory, which you probably know) of both .

    Our challenges are simple and understandable:

    We want a world that is respectful of nature and in which EVERY person has (just because he is human) REAL and not on paper guaranteed material and spiritual rights that allow him to be a full human being…

  24. prometheus:
    Lukáš took the job of reasoning and refuted your arguments.
    You couldn't respond to him. You could not logically question his claim.
    You wrote that you could react, argue, but you didn't.
    Why am I writing this post? Because I would really be interested in continuing your discussion.
    For now, it seems that based on his arguments, you had to capitulate (although you don't admit it) and end the discussion.

  25. Btw, I am a graduating student of economics in half a year (focusing on methodology, epistemology and philosophy) and on Monday I hope for a bachelor's degree in sociology. So, without a patent on reason, I hope I have something to say on the subject; there is nothing but individuality.

    And it really is not a denial of sociology. Only sociologists are more or less comfortable working with abstractions, with simplifications. Such a simplification is the "collective interest". I offer a comparison - the claim that "one behaves like an egoistic maximizer, which calculates and as a result causes the markets to be in equilibrium without state intervention" is in fact extremely erroneous, albeit economically interesting. However, this is not a refutation of the economy, only some (but certainly most) economists were satisfied with the abstraction (completely unrealistic). People are not selfish calculators, let's look around, we see it everywhere.

    If we have abstractions, simplifications, it can easily happen that the results deduced from their interaction will be wrong, because it will be precisely the area of ​​simplification that will be affected by the conclusion. I will offer you 100 crowns and I will want you to take part and the rest will remain. For mainstream economists, the nightmare (!) Is the answer that you can take anything from 0 to 100. What I know is what gets in your ball kou But it can't be calculated. In their simplified model, you have to take 100 a basta. In more complex systems, then, such simplification can result in alarmingly poor conclusions. It is the same with the "interest" of the team. It is a more or less useful abstraction. But scientific conclusions drawn by deduction from abstractions are necessarily marked by error.

    The same is the "collective" in sociology. These are beautiful simplifications, the applicability of which in psychology (eg in crowd behavior) I do not doubt, but it cannot have a place in the science of society, because they are - just - simplistic. The collective can never demonstrate their choice.

    -----

    And let me make a remark - capitalism is not being introduced! It does not build, legislate or anything like that. Capitalism is no social system. It is the natural state of things, the natural course of life on earth. Everything that is introduced above this natural course is a more or less utopian and more or less socialist system. In this is the absolutely balavnoid stumbling block of the dispute between us. You can argue with Marxists, which is a better "system," Keynesians with ecologists, neo-Marxists. And all - ALL to one stands for violence. Returning to the previous comment in a circle.

  26. I will respond indecently to Gofry - in any case, we refuse (initiate) violence.

    Nothing more. We don't want anything, we don't look for anything, we don't build anything. We just believe (and it's not just a dull belief, it's a matter of the universality of morality and other purely philosophical matters) that violence must be punishable.

  27. Waffles are slowly 3 hours old, so it's only a short time for you:

    You are absolutely right that we are worried and disgusted about how the world works today. Like you probably anarcho-capitalists.

    Divide et impera, said the ancient Romans. Divide and rule. If the people in need of a change of circumstances cannot even agree on the basic framework of such a change, when different groups still emphasize their different views in particular, then tell me what miracle things will move for the better?

    Zeitgeist, the Movement of Change is clear in this regard: we are willing to listen to others and work together for change with people and groups who may not have the same opinion on everything as we do… And what about you? Where are your limits within which you can compromise, what you will never give up and what you will reject in any case? Hm?

  28. Maryo :-)… Are you not suggesting that there is no such thing as group interest? But then you would have to refute the whole of modern psychology and sociology and I'll tell you, that would be a real chore :-))

    In my opinion, Luke refutes modern psychology and sociology by reducing everything human to individual interest. It is a similar thought process as if someone told you that the human body is made up only of cells, no organs exist, and in fact not even that body (metaphorically representing the human interest) does. Do you understand what I mean?

    I have it a little differently:

    I understand man as a system that has several levels of existence. The basic structural ones are:

    a) individual (current and ontogenetic)
    b) group (small and large)
    c) humanity (current and historical)

    So if I think about a person, I think about him in all these 3 levels and I don't consider any of them more or less important than the other 2. I see the solution in how to reconcile individual, group and universal needs and interests so that it works so that there are no threatening ecological or social crises, which ultimately lead to a threat to the existence of higher life and humanity.

    And to clarify:

    The whole is a scientific concept. It has its structure, processes, driving forces, which can be in dynamic equilibrium or even imbalance. Find out independently of me.

    If the natural-social whole is to be balanced, is it not current and historically about being balanced in all the systemic levels of its existence? Can you, as representatives of anarcho-capitalism, say what is difficult for you to understand this assumption and reasoning?

    I understand your emphasis on individual freedom, even though it seems incomplete to me without incorporating group and universal needs and interests. Would you be able to look with other eyes?

  29. I believe uff… but also towards your whole thoughtful argument Lukáš :-))

    Either way, I appreciate that you put in the effort and reacted to me in this way and laid the cards on the table as well. Still, please tell me about yourself, what views do you represent here? Is it anarcho-capitalism, if I guess well? Or something else?

    Do you know what I'm thinking about right now? What is it that two undoubtedly educated, above-average intelligent people like you and me, who think well, have come to such different views on solving the problems of this world? :-)

    But one thing probably connects us :-) and that: that we both feel that something is wrong, even if we have a different idea of ​​the causes of this condition and ways to remedy it. Hm?

    So I have a question for you: if such personalities as you and I meet, who have different views on the "thing", how can they communicate constructively? Do you have a recipe? :-)

    You know, quite honestly: I could also answer you extensively here now, question what you wrote here… then you would do the same to me again… and in the end we could write our books about it :-)) but say: would that solve the problems we face and talk about here?

    And maybe this whole thing is not about sophisticated arguments and counter-arguments but something else :-) What do you think?

    Conclusion:
    Anarcho-capitalism is not new, it is not original and it is not hope. On the contrary, it is a threat, especially to the freedom of each of us.

    Really, how does that sound to you? :-)

  30. Uff ..

    @Prometheus:
    '(1) The freedom of some cannot be based on the non-freedom of the other.
    (2) Ownership may not be property which economically enslaves others. "

    Man makes his own decisions and voluntarily - at present, enforcement is in the power of the state alone (and only through him can I gain strength for it). Thus, "enslavement" is always a consequence of state activity, when I can "defend" against theft from the state only in the state police or state courts according to state laws. It doesn't matter what form the state is.

    Freedom is voluntariness. I decide for myself whether or not to abide by something. If not, I don't have to work with the "regulator" anymore - he doesn't have much to do. Just as he can attack, I can defend. For example, I can "insure" myself against trying to force my order on me. War is expensive, private individuals do not fight violently. The only one who is at war is the state.

    "Economic enslavement" initiates that you see the economy as "economy," but "economy" is the way people act!

    "Do you also think with your own head or do you just present a general, officially recognized capitalist view of capitalism and its rival / enemy, Communism?"

    Again perverted thinking. Thoughts you don't like are suddenly "a general, officially accepted capitalist view of capitalism" and not "its head"?
    Well, then you are the same representative of herd thinking called "Zeitgeist" (slovak edition). Only those who give you an "official opinion" are the leading thinkers of your "movement." Same logic.

    No, it is his and your opinion, because you have voluntarily accepted and agreed with that opinion, just as he voluntarily accepted and agrees with his opinion. It's not a parrot. The problem is that I think of unique people, while you think of humanities. Me about the individual, you about the collective and the individual is lost to you. But the collective is really nothing but a group of individuals!

    "How freely do you decide, let's say, about the situation in 'your' workplace and in 'your' company?"
    If I am the owner (I have my workplaces and my company), then to the extent that the state allows me to do it (only the state lives here at our expense). If I am an employee, then I am only a supplier of the production factor for a given company and it is NOT a COMPANY. I have no right to decide on it, just as I do not have the right to decide on you and your apartment (and vice versa). I decide at most about myself, when I think about whether my salary at work is sufficient compensation for the time I spend there and the regulations I endure. I can always leave my job. No one is stopping you, no one but the state cannot.

    If someone (state or thanks to the state) prevents you from leaving work, it is a prison. State prison of forced labor. If I agreed to some conditions of leaving the job when signing the contract (I decided whether to sign it, it is my rational - intellectual - voluntary decision), then the employer (customer) of course has the full right to meet these requirements, on which you both agreed.

    "The degree of your influence depends on the objective quality of your designs and solutions. Does this system really depend on the objective quality of your designs and solutions? ”

    There is no objective quality. It depends on the subjective assessments of individuals whether your proposals and solutions correspond to their preferences (demand). If you do something that no one wants, you are unlucky and you have to talk people out of the quality of your design and solution. You can't force it on them, because then you would live at their expense, which is not freedom and which is what you don't want.

    "You decide so that your freedom is not based on the non-freedom of others. You are looking for win-win solutions also from the point of view of the dynamic balance of the natural and social whole. Within this framework, you have ALL possible and available individual and group freedoms. But whoever has the freedom must also have a responsibility! There is a direct relationship between them.
    Is this company really based on win-win solutions that express the basic and developmental needs of all stakeholders? ”

    What is a "win-win" solution? A solution that benefits all parties to the agreement. That is, solutions on which all parties to the agreement agree voluntarily - the concept of "win-win" is subjective in each party. A voluntary agreement is not concluded if I do not see any form of profit in it (perception of profit is subjective!). This is called "free" or "free" exchange.

    If I have to force something on someone and create a situation by force for certain shifts, it is redistribution and forcing people to make agreements where one wins at the expense of the other or loses both and I gain. Only if I let people act voluntarily (not from a position of power and state) can I find a long-term win-win solution (uh, how many hundreds of years is this the old theory of exchange?). If there is a shift to violence, there is a "zero sum" and someone is at the expense of another. If that were not the case, there would be no need for that violence.
    Win-win solutions bring capitalism (free market, free exchange), what you fight against brings redistribution and state regulation. The free market, exchange at all, cannot exist if I cannot decide on myself and my capital (one of the first components of human capital is speech and walking!), That is, without property. Ergo: no ownership is not a win-win solution.

    "Respecting the interests of the natural-social whole is NOT the same as respecting the interests of the group (collectivism) at the expense of the interests of the individual (individualism). What kind of freedom is it when the individual asserts himself at the expense of the group and vice versa? Socialism emphasized the collective, capitalism emphasized the freedom of the individual. The ZMY movement comes with a different understanding of freedom:
    Freedom is the harmony between the individual and the collective interests of man from the point of view of the whole. "

    Who is a natural and social entity that expresses interest? "We"? But "we", the collective, the group is only a group of individuals and only individuals are interested (30s, theory of public choice)! If someone says that something is "the interest of the collective-whole", then he only says that something is HIS interest, but at the same time shows that he wants to impose this interest on others. If he wants to do so through the state, it is violence and a violation of freedom. It is coercion if we want to have a society where the interest of the "whole" will be paramount, because the "interest of the whole" does not exist. He has interests who have goals, preferences and decisions. It doesn't have a whole, only individuals have it. Only a dictator can create the "interests of the whole."

    "Freedom is the harmony between the individual and the collective interests of man from the point of view of the whole."

    You say, "Respecting the interests of the natural-social whole is NOT the same as respecting the interests of the group (collectivism) at the expense of the interests of the individual (individualism)." So what applies? If "Freedom is the harmony between the individual and collective interests of man from the point of view of the whole," then you refuted in one paragraph.

    "You have a PERSONAL + COLLECTIVE + ALL-SOCIETY ownership of your own life resources guaranteed by the company. And how is it today? ”

    Stupidity. "Society as a whole" does not exist as a real entity. He has no interests, he has no property, he does not decide. The only one who owns is a person, an individual. The only one guarantees personal ownership.

    "You are guaranteed such education and lifelong learning, access to information 'that allows you to work in accordance with your talents, with the development of your creative and symbiotic potential. How many receive such education today? ”
    Nobody knows what kind of education and training and what access to information I require. Nobody knows better than me. That is why the state education system as it is today, like any other socialist education system, is a huge mistake. Let me exchange goods and services the way I want. Loosely. As for education, so in free-market education.

    "You do what you enjoy and what you find useful.
    How many are there today who don't do it primarily for money? ”

    Demonizing the medium of exchange? Without money, you wouldn't have a computer, because I don't know if you'll find enough silicon in your immediate area to make it. If someone voluntarily gives you money for your work, providing your capital (not only machines, financial resources, but also knowledge or opportunities), then you were useful. If someone gave you that much money, then you were very helpful. Usefulness is not an objective but a subjective perception!

    "Sufficient eco-renewable resources for everyone and for all as a fundamental human right."

    Imagine that if there was no industrial revolution, we would not burn oil and coal. Who would make and invent your ecological and renewable technologies for the processing of ecological resources?

    Food is certainly important, should it be "right"? Clothes? What clothes? What food? Possibility of transport? Ok, bus? Porsche? Who decides? Let's leave it to the people, that is, to their voluntary decision. That is freedom. And also the market and capitalism.

    "Therefore, we propose the concept of a secure resource economy based on hi-tech and universal social ownership of living resources."
    Unrealizable. See all the previous answer, it's a dictatorship. You show the result, but you have to force people. You need an institution of the state (monopoly of power), a dictatorship. Read Orwell.

    "The decision-making processes of society must be based on science and expertise that respect and express the dynamic balance of the natural and social whole. Therefore, we propose a new model of decision-making, the concept of combining competent and direct democracy. Real solutions are neither "left" nor "right", they express the objective laws of our world (there are no left-handed or right-wing aircraft, only those that respect the aerodynamic properties of airborne flight). "

    Of course! Socialism as embroidered, but it is old. Claude Henri Rouvroy, Count de Saint-Simon, wanted it 200 years ago.

    Henri de Sanit-Simon and his conception of socialism were based on an optimistic belief in science and in the development of an industry that opens the door to a world of order and justice for all. How does it work? Industrial inventions are based on natural laws discovered by natural scientists. Industrial inventions are put into practice by industrialists, so-called "industrialists", so that the combination of discoveries of natural laws and their implementation into practice leads to economic growth. Economic growth, in turn, allows for greater consumption of goods, which is why everyone is doing better. Because natural scientists and industrialists are the bearers of progress, they become (the solemn fanfare comes): a "new elite" that has a "mission" (this is such a beautifully general word that it is used without exception by all revolutionaries). And now comes the brilliantly sparkling finale: the mission of the "new elite" is to establish a "new order" and to manage the economy and society as a whole, as if it were one big workshop or one big factory. In the "new order", society will finally be centrally planned and managed, so that the spontaneity and chaos of competition, which are the causes of the poverty and suffering of workers, will be definitively eliminated.

    Now it remains to present a plan for how all this will be put into practice. Henri de Saint-Simon realized that it simply would not work without a change in the political system. The new order will be replaced by a government that will run society on "scientific principles," called "Newton's advice" (here Henri de Saint-Simon wanted to show the deepest respect for the phenomenal scientist). The "Newton Council" was to consist of three chambers. The first chamber would plan a "public enterprise" and would consist of 200 engineers and 100 artists. Together they would plan what would be produced and in what quantity (in economic jargon about the volume and structure of the product). The second chamber would examine and approve the plans of the first chamber and would include 100 biologists, 100 mathematicians and 100 physicists. In fact, one only needs some "inputs" and "outputs". When understood "correctly" scientifically, human inputs and outputs can actually be viewed as mechanical forces. So the output immediately becomes the input and the "regeneration" of the system is guaranteed. Inputs and outputs need to be "only" scientifically defined and a "proper" scientific apparatus created. The third chamber had the task of actually implementing the plans of the first and second chambers and was to consist of 300 large entrepreneurs. Industries organize all production so that it is not wasted anywhere.
    (cit. - economic irregular - http://www.mises.cz/literatura/ekonomicke-nepravidelniky-25-kapitola-xix-claude-rouvroy-123.aspx)
    Yes, this is the guy Hayek coined the term "social engineer," the guy who created the idea of ​​"central planning," and the guy Marx thought was such a jerk that he preferred his theory to "socialism." he called his theory Saint-Sim) he called "communism". Yeah, that's him.

    "The main cultural value must be such education and training, mass media environment, art and ethics - which give every mentally healthy person a real opportunity to activate and realize their highest spiritual, ie creative and symbiotic potential."

    We can allow it, people have to take care of it themselves (otherwise it is enforcement and violence). You know what, I know such a system: free exchange. Free market. Capitalism.

    "In my opinion, economic enslavement always occurs everywhere and where one person produces more than he gets and the other gets more than he produces. Is it even possible in a "free" society? Possible! and it happens daily before our eyes!
    The economic basis of such an unequal transfer is a fetishized private property. It allows me to make a profit = appropriating something that doesn't belong to me. It's actually a legalized theft. "

    But Marx's theory of surplus value has already been refuted, more than once…

    Value is not objective, but only subjective perception! The employee creates the value of his salary with his work, because he voluntarily exchanged it for this "value"! We need the state and violence for forced labor…

    "The result is asymmetric agreements where the rich get rich and the poor get poor. Is this economic freedom? ”

    But is there any capitalism today? Where? I don't see him. Only socialist interventionism and fascist corporatism. The environment in which we exchange creates the state and shapes it through enforcement and violence. This is not freedom. If you want to prevent people from making the agreements mentioned voluntarily, fine, then you are committing violence. And that is not freedom.
    Notwithstanding, the claim about weight loss and wealth is nonsense. See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD60Pxsk20I

    '(1) Personal property
    2) Community ownership
    3) Human property
    These 3 types of ownership need to be reconciled for the benefit of each and every inhabitant of the Earth, which is beyond the scope of the current, privately owned, monetary system. "

    Uff. So: you can make voluntary decisions (personal property), but only as the community (community property) allows you to "submit" to the "world" "congress". This is my freedom, one of the supporters of the zeitgeist said that my comparison of a gifted lawyer and a tile was not correct. But you just showed it here!

    In conclusion:

    Zeitgeist is not new, it is not original and there is no hope. On the contrary, it is a threat, especially to the freedom of each of us.

  31. Well, was the file such a rhetorical question… Group and family ownership? Well, it must be someone who determines how much you can own, someone who determines what under what ownership what falls, someone…

  32. @prometheus

    A) The contemporary world is not capitalist, but socialist. Anarcho-capitalists are as disgusted in today's world as you are. If you protest against today's world, you are protesting against socialism, not capitalism.

    B) You have five people and one plot of land. The first person wants a swimming pool on the land, the second a house, a third fountain, a fourth field with greenery, the fifth so that the land remains intact. What exactly is the procedure in this state that "reconciles between individual and collective human interests from the point of view of the whole"?

    C) You forgot the third possibility, when they both get more than they produced themselves. Example: Farmer Mato grows wheat and bakes bread. Farmer Miro raises cows and milkes milk. Both Mato and Miro produce more bread and milk than they consume. That is why Maťo will exchange the surplus bread with Mir for the surplus milk. Both have more than they would be able to produce on their own. No one was harmed. They're both getting better. That is capitalism. The fight against capitalism is the fight for poverty.

  33. Thomas…

    The resource-based economy (RBE) is based on the universal social ownership of all the resources of the planet Earth. It is another type of ownership such as private ownership of resources, which is one of the foundations of the capitalist monetary system. Now, please listen to me carefully to understand the difference although you don't have to agree with me, that's clear…

    The main difference between private property in its current form and universal social property on which the vision of the RBE civilization is based is that universal property DOES NOT ALLOW PROFIT while private property is directly based on profit!

    We need to free ourselves from the idea that producing resources for life is the same as producing profit. In fact, these are 2 different things. Not only is it possible to produce without money and without profit, but thanks to that it is possible to produce in sufficient quantity to satisfy the needs of all mankind. That sounds pretty brutal, isn't it? :-) But it's not as crazy as it seems at first glance…

    Universal social ownership PERSONAL ownership does not exclude! The author of the article "Capitalism and the Zeitgeist" has added this from the very beginning. He equated: private property = individual freedom and thus, out of ignorance, became one of the advocates of a system that no longer has a future.

    Human property rights in the RBE civilization go even further: In addition to personal property, I have an impact on collective / community and universal property, of which I am the administrator, in accordance with my competencies, but not determined by bureaucrats or unthinking crowds (and here the BCL reintroduces its readers) but are the result of my true abilities and performance. The Movement of Change in Slovakia has a very precise idea of ​​COMPETENT democracy, its tools and mechanisms, which is an overcoming of the current representative democracy in which ignorant people often decide and who only lobby for "left" or "right" group interests (and the good of the whole is stolen from them )…

    So let's summarize:

    The universal social property on which the vision of the RBE civilization is based, the first civilization of a sustainable type, does not restrict the freedom of the individual. However, it reconciles it with the freedom of communities and the freedom of humanity. Therefore, USV has 3 basic forms in which every person on the planet participates:

    1) Personal property
    2) Community ownership
    3) Human property

    These 3 types of ownership need to be reconciled for the benefit of each and every inhabitant of the Earth, which is beyond the scope of the current, privately owned, monetary system.

    What do you think, why?

  34. Maryo :-)… However, don't mix pears with apples :-)

    After all, I was talking about the basic capitalist economic relationship owner-market-employee and not about the relationship between donor and gifted :-))… And I'm not talking about the relationship between adults and children or healthy and sick where individual economic imbalance in the sense of dal-got natural and it is balanced (if society really works) by the principle of solidarity at a higher, society-wide regulatory level.

    OK, you mention the third world… And you ask: Is its extreme poverty a problem of capitalism or that capitalism has not yet gotten there? You know what? The best answer will be to find out for yourself. I've already found out (why is the rich North getting richer and the poor South getting poorer?) But my answer is still a second-hand answer, so I won't say anything, examine for yourself…

  35. "One person produces more than he gets and the other gets more than he produces"

    According to this statement, I would enslave myself economically if I wanted to make you happy and buy you a motorcycle. As long as it is based on voluntariness, you can always change employers. But you probably didn't mean it that way. But companies cannot afford to pay small employees because they would run away from them where they would pay more…

    But of course there can be such cases as a person who does not know his price (maybe mentally handicapped Vasik who likes to plow the field and say nothing about it…. The question is whether there is a mistake or not) or in the third world people who make shoes for a quarter on day… Only… Is it a problem of capitalism or that capitalism has not yet gotten there?

  36. Choronzon:

    I asked Mary questions, did you read them? Do you also think with your own head or do you just present a general, officially recognized capitalist view of capitalism and its rival / enemy, communism?

    On the one hand, you confuse the freedom of choice with the option to choose. Being able to choose the form of my own execution (extreme example), that I can choose between hanging, shooting, an electric chair or a lethal injection is not freedom after all! Is the point clear?

    You are free, in my opinion and the Movement of Change when:

    1) You have the opportunity to participate in creating the rules of the game according to which you play. Do you really have it in the capitalist system or do others decide for you? How freely do you decide, let's say, about the situation in "your" workplace and in "your" company?

    2) The degree of your influence depends on the objective quality of your designs and solutions. Does this system really depend on the objective quality of your designs and solutions?

    3) You decide so that your freedom is not based on the non-freedom of others. You are looking for win-win solutions also from the point of view of the dynamic balance of the natural-social whole. Within this framework, you have ALL possible and available individual and group freedoms. But whoever has the freedom must also have a responsibility! There is a direct relationship between them.

    Is this company really based on win-win solutions that express the basic and developmental needs of all stakeholders?

    4) Do you have a PERSONAL + COLLECTIVE + WHOLESALE ownership of your own life resources guaranteed by the company. And how is it today?

    6) You are guaranteed such education and lifelong learning, access to information …to enable you to work in accordance with your talents, with the development of your creative and symbiotic potential. How many receive such education today?

    7) You do what you enjoy and what you are useful for.

    How many there are today who do not do primarily for money?

    Respecting the interests of the natural-social whole is NOT the same as respecting the interests of the group (collectivism) at the expense of the interests of the individual (individualism). What kind of freedom is it when the individual asserts himself at the expense of the group and vice versa? Socialism emphasized the collective, capitalism emphasized the freedom of the individual. The ZMY movement comes with a different understanding of freedom:

    Freedom is the harmony between the individual and collective interests of man from the point of view of the whole.

    Such freedom can be achieved only under certain conditions:

    1) Sufficient ecologically renewable resources for everyone and for all as a basic human right.

    Therefore, we propose the concept of a secure resource economy based on hi-tech and universal social ownership of living resources.

    2) The decision-making processes of society must be based on science and expertise that respect and express the dynamic balance of the natural and social whole.

    That is why we are proposing a new model of decision-making, the concept of combining competent and direct democracy. Real solutions are neither "left" nor "right", they express the objective laws of our world (there are no left-handed or right-wing aircraft, only those that respect the aerodynamic properties of airborne flight).

    3) The main cultural value must be such upbringing and education, mass media environment, art and ethics… which give every mentally healthy person a real opportunity to activate and realize their highest spiritual, ie creative and symbiotic potential.

    Note on economic enslavement:

    In my opinion, economic enslavement always occurs everywhere and where one person produces more than he gets and the other gets more than he produces. Is it even possible in a "free" society? Possible! and it happens daily before our eyes!

    The economic basis of such an unequal transfer is a fetishized private property. It allows me to make a profit = appropriating something that doesn't belong to me. It's actually a legalized theft.

    Find out how interest arises and how debts, inflation arise. Ask yourself who determines the capitalist economic relationship more: the owner or the employee? When the situation is tense and the two negotiate, who is pulling for the shorter end? The one who has more or less living resources? I am not just talking now about individual capitalists and employees, I am talking about the total capitalist and the total employee. 10% of people own 90% of the world's resources and 90% of people own 10% of resources. When these two groups meet, which one will have the upper hand in everyday life? Who can push more to the wall? The result is asymmetric agreements where the rich get rich and the poor get poor. Is this economic freedom?

  37. Yes. Even my vision is freedom. But unfortunately I see neither property nor capitalism behind it. 🙂

    No it is not. There is no freedom without personal property, because there is no possibility that in some normal society everyone would voluntarily give up property. Despite the fact that the practical consequence would be a return to the Stone Age.

    One must remain able to express one's self-determination or expression of one's uniqueness.
    - What if my self-determination and uniqueness is the accumulation of wealth?
    One must have the widest possible freedom of self-development.
    - What if I need large assets for personal development?
    One must remain able to own and enjoy one's thoughts, feelings and experiences.
    - How on earth do you want to own thoughts? Has anyone stolen your feelings and experiences?
    One should have the right to identify with any group or to integrate directly into that group.
    - even with a group of disgusting capitalists amassing property?

  38. prometheus:
    what is economic enslavement?

    When I voluntarily enter into an employment relationship as an employee, am I enslaved? When I voluntarily buy something from a manufacturer, am I being exploited?

    Enslavement means that it is an involuntary, forced transaction, where one party is deprived of the freedom to decide.

    Profiting at the expense of me seems as meaningless to me as the Marxist notion of exploitation. If both parties to the exchange agree, there is no need to introduce concepts such as "profit at the expense". If one party disagrees, it is a breach of ownership.

  39. First I will ask you maryo otherwise:

    1) Do you have a personal experience when someone profited at your expense? Are you trying to be honest? When did you find out that something was wrong in that relationship?

    I'm not just talking about economic profit at the expense of the other…

    2) Is the question of profit at the expense of the other a legitimate question? Is it a real or just a fictional problem?

    3) If it is real is it okay that the system allows us to profit at the expense of nature and others or not?

    4) If it's not right, what is your idea of ​​how it could change?

    Because Zeitgeistmovement Slovakia has such an idea…

  40. The word FREEDOM and OWNERSHIP is often used here. It is said that the Zeitgeistmovement denies both… Well, I will say this directly: such a statement is ILLEGALITY and is misleading. In the worst case, it is an open JAM.

    The Zeitgeistmovement denies neither human freedom nor personal property. However, it has 2 conditions:

    1) The freedom of some cannot be built on the non-freedom of others.

    2) Ownership cannot be property that economically enslaves others.

    Zeitgeistmovement Slovakia offers a vision of sustainable civilization, which is based on 3 main pillars:

    1) ECONOMY - Resource Economy (RBE)
    2) POLICY - Competent democracy
    3) CULTURE BASED AND CREATIVITY AND COOPERATION

    More on http://www.zeitgeistmovement.sk

  41. comments from a man under the nickname BCL can perhaps not even be taken seriously :-) The first mistake is that at all he likens the current system to laissez-faire capitalism. However, the system practiced in advanced Western civilization has little to do with pure capitalism. In his book "The End of History", the neoconservative philosopher Francis Fukuyama described the beginning of the 21st century as the "end of history" which culminates in the arrival of the "Last Man", ie. that there was a final millennium of global social democracy and a new kind of human homo socio-democraticus appeared in it. Secondly, in his contribution he writes something about looking for a perfect system that will solve all our problems with "modern capitalism", so Marx, Engels, Hegel, Auguste Comte, Bakunin, Kropotkin and what I know have not yet succeeded in finding a system that would be perfect. Unfortunately, there is no perfect system :-) I think what the person is trying to do is just a utopia. The sentence that perfectly captures the continuing intellectual devastation of that contributor is: Man in today's world (not only in our country) is not able to "live his life." And that's why you will live life according to me. As if I've heard it before, it quite smells like some form of collectivism that this gentleman is trying to invent.

  42. @BCL - It's good to first realize what it means to say that "Person X owns Y". Ownership means having the exclusive right to decide what happens to a given thing. There can be no human society without some determination of who will decide what.

    And the question is exactly what the rules of who will decide what should be. In this, there is a fundamental contradiction between the capitalists and the socialists. The capitalists claim that only the one who created the thing can decide on a thing. The Socialists say that the matter should be decided not by its creator, but for some reason by all people. There is no other way.

    Each of these directions is worth exploring and then choosing the better one. And it turns out that capitalism is the better. Better in the sense that it allows more people to achieve a better life, no matter who wants what they want. Because in capitalism, everyone can do what they think will bring him the best life. In socialism, one must also do things that one does not care about and that actually reduce the quality of one's life.

  43. @lafi: I think the desire to help is just ingrained in many people. It is the meaning of their being and it brings them pleasure. On the contrary, most people are terrified by the idea that you can't help someone if they need such help.

    You are right that if people strive to save everyone (even those who do not care), their efforts usually lead to dead ends ending in blindness and the dictates of uniqueness.

    Nevertheless, I think one should continue to research in this sector. Try to find new directions and, above all, try to avoid the mistakes of those in front of you.

  44. @tomas: you are partially right. In my opinion, the basic question is not private property yes / no. The basic question is what can be owned so that one does not deny other people the right of ownership.

  45. Yes. Even my vision is freedom. But unfortunately I see neither property nor capitalism behind it.

    I may be wrong, but in my opinion, it is overestimated and distorted that right of ownership. I understand an attitude where ownership is a certain unique and self-determining mediator. On the other hand, is it not possible for precisely this property right to be the cause of restrictions on freedoms? Try to look at property rights, for example, with the following (even here a bit twisted) view.

    If one person owns one physical thing, it denies the free right to own that thing to someone else. If a person owns land, he can deny its use to another person and thus restrict their free rights (movement, use, etc.).

    Then there are a lot of things you can't own (or shouldn't be possible). It should not be possible to own another life, another freedom, other people's thoughts, experiences or emotions.

    If you own something, it can further restrict you (or your loved ones) in your freedom. For example, if you own a house and want to keep it, you must maintain it. Invest part of your resources (time, work, values, etc.) in its maintenance. While this is a personal decision to lose your freedoms, it can restrict the freedoms of you and your loved ones.

    Of course, there are many other examples and other counterexamples that confirm or refute these claims.

    I once came across the idea that one should be able to own only what one can bear. It is sufficient for self-expression and it does not have to fundamentally affect the "freedom of the environment". Although it has its flies and moreover it does not fit into our materially tuned ranking of values, but personally I liked the idea quite a bit.

    We can come to a similar "buffer zone" even if we describe the act of exchanging goods. In other words, the exchange may not always be equal or equally advantageous in all cases and between different entities.

    Personally, I argue that one should support the following principles:

    One must remain able to express one's self-determination or expression of one's uniqueness.
    One must have the widest possible freedom of self-development.
    One must remain able to own and enjoy one's thoughts, feelings and experiences.
    One should have the right to identify with any group or to integrate directly into that group.

    I don't think this is a complete list of basic principles. Moreover, as you can see, I cannot yet express the basic principles without the words freedom and property. Therefore, there are certainly several paradoxes that can deny each other's principles. Moreover, this list is far too general. But I haven't gotten further yet. Maybe I'm trying too hard to find general building blocks on which to build further. For now, however, it seems to me to be the best direction.

  46. Where in people does the desire for the salvation of everything and everyone come, for believers to "establish heaven on earth"? Why do such people want to fit into the role of the only true heralds?

    Do they not understand that every faith, order, bright tomorrow, no matter what we call it, is in essence a dictatorship, which does not allow other opinions?

    I think Tomas wrote it well in the comment before me. Either private property and everything that goes with it, or collective collectivism. Today's catfish is not viable.

  47. I once came across a call under an article for people on the right and left to come together in a joint effort to find a better social council. So I typed - ok, let's start with personal ownership. Either we keep it and therefore capitalism, or we abolish it and there is communism / socialism. Then we discuss put. He didn't answer anymore

    In my opinion, searchers for a better world do not realize that the possibilities are quite limited, and behind all these bullshit about better tomorrow, there is just one question - private property yes or no?

Comments are off.