Great Thanks Peter ;)

Finally!
Iv'e been checking the site ever so frequently!
Now we need to translate this to hebrew!

Glad to see this appearing! :)

Thank you so much Peter.

We will be translating this to spanish as soon as posible.

Cheers from Argentina.

Thanks, Peter! So far, awesome! Can't wait for the rest of it. Do you have a time frame, please?

This is obviously much more important than my job. I am currently using that as an excuse to not do any work until I watch the next part in the series.

Anyone have any idea when that next video might be appearing?

Wow. Didn't realize it puts your real name on there. Huh. I actually mean, I am currently working very hard, just mildly curious to find out when the next part is going up, so that I can watch it after I have completed all of my work.

Great conference Peter. Some of us can`t really join you live, unfortunally we are still in monatery system so we can`t afford it to come over, but we are supporting you from a distance and also watching you with great pleasure...Keep up the great work, we appreciate it.

Very interesting conference indeed. I'm glad at least some of us see the world we live in now, for what it really is. Looking forward to the remaining parts, good job on everything you and Jacque have done so far, Peter. Keep it up...

If you're running Firefox, get the DownloadHelper extension. It'll allow you to grab an MP4 version that's about one quarter of the size of the MOV and playable in almost any media player.

For media Players, I prefer the open source VLC Media Player. It plays just about everything PLUS it handles subtitles extremely well.

This is good work. I'll do my part to make sure people hear the message. There's much work to do. Thank you, Peter, for doing your part.

Thanks Peter! Waiting for the whole, to pack a custom made toolkit DVD with the two docs, activist orientation guide, and some interviews.
We are preparing an event in january in my city, and we'll distribute your material.
Thanks!!
ClaudioF
ARGENTINA

Peter great job!

Peter thanks for taking the time to capture, edit, and upload the presentation. I've been looking forward to watching this for a few weeks now.

peter thank you for all the great lectures ...
the israeli zeitgeist chapter growing each day :)

Excellent work Peter. Thank you for creating and giving this lecture on the primary cause of all the world's problems.

Whoa! This is a masterpiece. Very accurate and articulate, yet still with a solid message.
This is the sort of stuff that I think most people in western societies would really respond to.

In a more sane society this would be on prime time television and on major channels.

Looking forward to the other parts!

Are you deleting posts that are not 100% supportive of your view?

I'm pretty sure I posted a comment about you having valid points but I think that there is a wave of conspiracy theorists coming forth these days. All I want is to say to be careful about getting too paranoid.

If you insist talking about conspiracy theorists, you dont get a full understand what is this all about. Those are symptoms.
ZM goes for the route causes that origin problems.
Sorry my bad english.

Juztn, there might have been an error in the posting system or smthng. It happens to me in youtube and such. try posting your reply again.

Great Job Peter! Please let us know a timeframe in when to see the other parts.

Very.....very good .........keep up the good work. (p.j).......and i will also do the same............

Thanks!!!

Great stuff. Really enjoyed what you had to say as always and the vantage point given.

Peter,

Genius! I have been following your work and am in total alignment. I am ready for the test city. I do believe we have a Crisis in Consciousness. Thanks for waking people up, together we can create a new reality.

And... what if we had a government suporting the venus project?

Fantastic! I LOVE this way of thinking!

How I CAN DOWNLOAD a movie and copy onto CD as I am limited to use internet but have people to show and share with them what I learn here ?...will appreciate any advice you can give me on : kiterainbow@live com
Thanks...yours Aya..:)

nice piece.

Nice .. ill whait for the subtitules in spanish so i can understand a little more.
You take some things from George Carlin when you talk about homeless people .. great man
sry for my bad english :)

amazing

Thanks Peter. This by far was your finest delivery.

When you say, "THERE IS LITTLE INTRINSIC MOTIVATIoN To COMPLETELY sOLvE ANY CURRENTLY PRoFITABLE PRoBLEMs" do you mean that profit is an essential quality of intrinsic motivation? Sorry I just... I'm having a hard time paying attention. I'll have to listen more closely to what you're saying cause that just doesn't sound right. Intrinsic motivation is not concerned with Extrinsic rewards (ie Money). I thought we were sticking to the premise that "no incentives makes us work more efficiently" ddrrnt.amplify.com/2009/11/30/no-incentives-better-work/

That is great Peter. Well-Done!

Me gustaría que a este importante mensaje le coloquen los subtítulos en español, ya que así podría difundirse a más de 300 millones de personas de habla hispana. Gracias.

I would like to put subtitles in Spanish, as this
could spread to more than 300 million people
speaking spanish. Tanks.

well done as usual but yet we need action worldwide. There is no point of pinpointing the dark without constructively start our own civil thing to opose to all mistakes done so far. We have offered to the US government to build 2 to 8 million labor places on behalf of our NGO and at sole interest and benefit to the US population. Keep book on such and assist. May understand everybody that fear, anger and bad reaction is the very same strategy at high level mass manipulation. I prefer dying while trying because we are not worms and there is always something bigger than iluminati high finance and corrupt politics and cheating religions. Peters work is being constantly distributed by our networks to 10 million ppl in Southamerica.
Those whom pushing on the Venus projecy may contact please and we have some exchange on inside finance thereto. Thanks ong.asfam@gmail.com Horst *Grischa* Ludwig

great work peter! you are a wonderful communicator indeed. we are having lectures of our own here in Israel and we are using many of your explenations as they are so clear and persuasive.

can you (or anyone who is able) please upload a transcript of this lecture so we can translate it more easily?

can't i work for Zeitgeist or do something for them, here in Belgium, in the Netherlands the site is something, the Belgium part could better be linked to that one, because here in Belgium the site is good, but not much to connect with, i would love to get to know some people to work with ♥

Inspirational and informational! Thanks

Fucking brilliant.

This is all very good, and I've been following the Zeitgeist movement "passively" in the last few months. It actually sounds and looks to good to be true.
I really would like to believe that such a transformation will happen, but as we all know, it's always the practice and not theory that happens...Therefore, some questions:
1. The Venus project and Zeitgeist assume that the world we live in will be a scientific world with scientists, engineers, mathemeticians etc being the most "valuable" people. Questions is: What do the others do? One cannot expect everybody to be good in math and sciences, in fact I know some people around me who hate Math and science! (Don't get me wrong, I'm an engineer and IT consultant and I think I've done enough work in the university for the "systems approach" , it's just that I'm wondering how we would be integrating all people from all occupations into this system and society).
2. How and what mechanism decides what can be given to which person? I know that there's no money, but there will always be a limit to what can be produced. What if a lot of people want - say - 6-7 room houses, all at least 200 m2, have a nice view, etc? At some point, there will be a limit, and the system will have to choose which person to give what. At that point, the ones who get the "big" and "nice" houses will be happy, the other ones will complain, and there you go, you have a group of people who will fight to get the bigger houses, who will maybe talk to other people and spread this idea and bam! Before you know it you have a small war, or at least a group of people who want to destroy the system!
3. About the transition: It's very good that there are already 360 000 members. But, I'm pretty sure that this is not enough. I mean if we think of the word as 6 billion, I'm thinking that we will have at the most a few million people who would be educated enough to support this idea and system. What do we do with the rest? If you have only 1-2% of the whole world (maximum) eager and willing to bring down everything, how does it happen? How do we convince politicians, armies, etc? Let's be optimistic and assume that we convince a few very developped countries (like the US, Scandanivian and Cenral European countries), how do we convince highly nationalistic and religious countries? How do we convince Al Queda, Taliban and all the rest who have totallly a different world view, and I tell you they will die and kill everbody before going with us...

Again, I'm for it, and I would really like to see a world like the one you (Peter Joseph) have described, but I would like this to be real, I do not want this to be forgotten a few months later. I really want this to work, and for it to work, I think we should ask ourselves challenging questions, and really work hard on coming up with the answers. Only building the most intelligent systems will unfortunately not be enough in this world, we have to convince people that life will be better than now if they use those intelligent systems. And I personally do not know how to convince masses of people to throw over the existing system and to go with building a new one....I'd appreciate everybody's thoughts on that...

Peter, this is by far the most comprehensive and purposeful approach that I've seen for addressing society's problems. It is the most sound theory to reverse most if not all of the world's problems, however, like independent said, there are some practical-oriented questions that automatically spring to mind assuming that society would convert from a monetary-based to a resource based system, for instance:

If there is, lets say, a universally agreed way of producing clothes, using the most environmentally friendly and durable material, which is mass-produced to be worn by all of the world's population (for minimal reproduction of clothing from that point on)

A. The concept of fashion and the constant desire to want to wear new styles, different fabrics, different colors, etc. of apparel would surely create tension between the providers of the people and the people themselves since they would want to mix it up eventually.

B. On what basis can someone have multiple apparels of the same kind if desired. Since they are not paying or working for it, then how can you set a bar for when they can no longer ask for more?

Another question is how do you deal with a person that has committed murder? I know that it would be wisest to understand the root cause or the motive for the murder but then how do you compensate for the lost life in this respect, would there still be prisons? would that person's privileges be taken away?...

Peter Joseph (AKA ?) does an excellent job of stating what I had been thinking all throughout B-school. I do agree with him in many regards. I mostly agree with his understanding of the world’s problems, but am still skeptical of his conclusion.

The primary goal of ANY business is to obtain monopolistic power, not necessarily become a monopoly, but to have the majority of control in its market. The current system is structured to motivate businesses to aspire to that monopolistic realization. The more consumers controlled by a business equates to stricter regulation of price and profit. However, a free market is supposed to work at the point where Net Rev = Net Cost, meaning that profit (after running the company, paying all salaries, and paying taxes) will equal zero.

Since company’s can advance beyond this principal by obtaining monopolistic power; the government created regulations to control business monopolies such as Standard Oil (John D Rockefeller) to cultivate competition. I want to point something out here. Competition is not a “bad” idea maybe just inefficient compared to future possibilities. Competition stimulates progressive value in products ie technology improves exponentially every year because of competition. Competition eliminates groupthink and champions diversity in its beginning stages. In Rockefeller’s case, US Standard Oil became a monopoly in the early 1900’s, so in an effort to “encourage” diversity (competition), the government ordered him to break the company up into multiple companies. This act was a façade in my opinion, haha. He changed his monopoly into an Oligopoly creating Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron. Guess what, Exxon and Mobil got their band back together for an encore if you haven’t noticed.

The regulations made to help the free market function were important, but have been traversed by witty businessmen who collude in secrecy. Collusion is supposed to be against the law, but it hasn’t stopped the wise; they have the best lawyers. I will say that the Free Market has been the best economic system until now; it completely dominates historical communism (Look up the Great Leap Forward), but what can we tell the little people that just cannot compete? Become a laborer or starve? Worse yet, become a laborer AND starve! No, something has to give and we sure shouldn’t trust the F’ing UN to tell us what that is. Socialism isn’t any better; the government takes about 50-70% of your hard earned laboring income and recirculates it (if it even does that) as it sees fit.

As far as the viability of a resource-based economy is concerned, I have some reservations as to whether it would work, could even be integrated, or neither. I am willing to help in anyway that I can to brainstorm these ideas with the intellectually curious and thoughtful. It is a seriously broken system that allows a hypothetical company to buy copyrights over a revolutionary product or idea, purely to stunt or banish its relevancy in every day society (the amazing battery bought by oil companies spoken of in the presentation is just one example). I am left unconvinced by a centralized decision-making computer that makes decisions based on past solutions/ideals. That's not exactly progressive in my opinion, not to mention there are regional and cultural differences and something that works there may not work here and vice versa. This principal begs for decentralized decision-making capabilities.

I concede that Peter seems to have the prosperity of human civilization at the root of his motivation. I would also like to point out that his ideas are excellent and let’s face it, it’s about time someone has said it. How many of us have sat back idly watching the further deterioration of our political and economic systems? So much of the world’s population has bought into the bi-spherical paradigm that we live in today ie democrat/republican, at&t/verizon, and black/white to name a few. This could be a “real” change we as an aggregate/holistic society have been yearning for, for so long. Still, the prudent thinker needs to be apprehensive of all solve all (absolutist) scenarios. Question everything you hear because without difference, indifference and then manipulation can materialize. That is a statement that may be perceived as militant, but in a world that cannot be trusted; it seems a sane one to me.

This is an interesting video and, on first sight, its argumentation seems to be very good. However, on a second look, your argument is extremely weak and, moreover, one sided.

Just a simple example. You say that the car industry in the US stopped the development of electro-mobiles, because of profit incentive, but what about the cons of electric cars? They are small, noisy, require lots of time to charge and most of them do not provide enough space to stuff your simple stuff for a camping trip. Additionally, yes american manufacturers may not wish to produce them, but how about the boom in Japan and China?

In order to convince more people to your cause, you should broaden your point of view not just condemn "dogma".

In conclusion I will say that I find your comment about "philosophical dogma" rather misguided. How could you possibly tell people that a disciple of thought, that is skeptic in its roots is "dogmatic"?

Peter, you should try to stop using the word 'person', as it's true meaning (legal straw-man) is at odds with the ideology of the VP. Great lecture mate, any chance of coming to Ireland?

"There is no such thing as an ethical transaction." Really? Were you going to back that up or just assume that we were hypnotized by the time you boiled everything down to that? Is it unethical for you to be paid to deliver your lectures?

So you didn't get paid - my mistake. But you did pay others in order to produce the lecture. Were those transactions unethical? If I'm to believe that there is something fundamentally ethically wrong about the idea of anyone paying money for services, I need more of an explanation. You made many other valid points about the damage that "free market capitalism" has done at a macro level but I don't see the connection to, for example, the transactions you engaged in to produce your lecture.

Your example about the store owner who eliminated competition to form a regional monopoly (or cartel) presumes that the individuals involved are despotic - but if we can assume individuals are despotic, you have an immense challenge to propose an alternative societal organization with any sort of power structure that is immune to despots. Or would you say that the competitive nature of capitalism is itself what creates despots, and that your hypothetical utopian future would somehow remain despot-free?

I think the work you are doing is admirable, and I'll admit my first reply was harsh. It would be good for you to respond to your critics with more than a "if you don't get it, you must be dumb".

While I appreciate the thought and work that went into the production of this lecture, it contains nothing really new and its philosophical underpinnings contain the same basic flaws as marxism: Someone has to decide how to allocate scarce resources. It can't be done by "government" or a faceless "civil authority." They are inanimate entities. No, at the end of the day some *person* has to make the decision as to who eats and who goes hungry. Some *person* has to decide who gets the liver transplant and who doesn't. The power to make those decisions will eventually accumulate to the few under any economic or political system.

This also ignores, or glosses over how decisions are made to make the best use of scarce resources. You blame the profit motive for the current misallocation of resources. Well, someone has to make a cost benefit analysis and decide how to allocate them. The choices are not always black and white. There are no absolutes.

For example, to produce a carbon-emission free car it may take 5% of your R&D funds to reduce 95% of the emissions, and 95% of your funds to eliminate them completely. At some point you reach diminishing marginal returns and could clearly make better use of your R&D dollars somewhere else. How do you make that choice? Who makes that choice?

When the extinction of a snail darter stands in the way of the production of your utopian emission free electric car, do you sacrifice the snail darter?

At the bottom of all of this is the supposition that you know better than the rest of us how we should best spend our time and energy. I'm sorry. I don't buy it.

Thank-You Peter!
It takes alot of balls to do what u do! U are an inspiration!

Great job, Peter!

Let us all spread the optimistic approach.

WE WILL OVERCOME.........

as far as ethics goes, it seems like when any business ethics is approached from the perspective of capital gains then there is no reform outside of an all for profit margin. therefore, ANYTHING that discusses the building of capital is fair game. ethics in a monetary based system allows for the discussion of mechanisms to be put in place that create an environment of scarcity and depletion of natural resources in order to raise profit margins. i don't see where this is confusing. the little store owner example works as a grass roots description to a global scenario. as far as peter rendering goods and services in the community he gave his lecture in...of course this is the way things are at this time. also, there is no chance this will change over night. however, by changing the way we as individuals think we can change the world. i try to devote some time each day to imagining a world where every human being was cared for...down to the last starving ethiopian. i try to imagine a world where armies have weapons of mass rice and cookies and they invade third world countries and feed everybody. "you may say i'm a dreamer...but i'm not the only one."

Peter Joseph: "Where are we going?" Nov. 15th '09 1/2

Spanish Subtitles: vimeo.com/8269803

Absolutely amazing lecture Peter! It has fueled in me a new fire which I truly believe will take me the distance!

I will do everything in my power to spread the message.
The ZM has already taken over my whole life. Its the only thing that seems worth while talking about anymore. Everything else seems like a waste of breath.

You are a true inspiration and as they say:

"I may not influence world change directly but I certainly may influence someone who will"

(Yes. all influence is indirect/direct). But I still love the qoute ;)

Much Love and Passion to you and everyone whos been inspired to ACT as well as to see this world with a new set of eyes!

P.S. I feel so lucky to be alive right now! I wonder.. what kind of life exists in Venus for a travelling surfer?

:)

Peter, Love your work- Please keep working on it. Your helping make the world a better place :)

Good to have some economists (with media power) start to turn their heads from capitalism

youtube.com/watch?v=tg3hYLzfWYQ

targetting lots of economists (that has ties with govt/law making) and getting the discussions started will help for sure-

Good work Peter. I think we need more material on transition period (how to occupy people until machines take over).
I've been thinking about this since my early teens. First I thought I was abnormal, than that I was an idiot, than that ignorance is bliss so I was glad to discover TZM about a year ago & overwhelmed to find that I'm not the only "abnormal" out there & that there are people that actually doing something.
And I do believe that this is the only option that make sense right now & we have a chance to make it right this time, despite history tells us otherwise or I'll die trying.
And for the rest of you lost in translation: WE MUST BECOME THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD - THAT IS IT.

Sorry for my english, still learning.

Peace

P.S. Checked the website today, there are only 361,529 members, last time I checked was close to 380,000???

This lecture is also available on YouTube. Spread it:
youtube.com/watch?v=5NcgHx9xTRQ
youtube.com/watch?v=ovkhMly5FTU

everythin is great an all but what happens if someone comits a homicide in this prefect society ? probable motiv - infidelity, unfaithfulness and after it in a fit of rage comits homicide ???

I like Peters work alot, but i was wondering if anyone had an explaination to why he listed the same name 3 and 4xs in a row.(in zeitgeist) was it to make the list seem longer and he did this in another part to where he listed the same thing 3 or 4x. He did such a fine job with the movie and this paints a different picture. unless he did it for a really good reason.

This isnt amazing. It isnt great. It isnt even good. Its garbage.

Hes shoveling shit...stop eating it.

this idea of motivation

why does a family/small business/corp/nation do anything ? intrinsic passions seem to really be the only long-term sustainable path to growth and domination.

Sure you could argue that free Markets lead to oligopolies BUT there they can be brought down by innovative upstarts - disrupted by new tech. yes driven by profit - but usually fueled by passion.

YES. Capitalism has BIG problems.. no system seems perfect. The mystery of Life is not easily contained - I have read of innovative ideas of housing the homeless and if there were appropriate state incentives to retrain perhaps there is PROFITABLE solution to that as well.

I dunno. I will say that you're talk was very stimulating and thought provoking... you just seemed to ignore entrepreneurism and beautiful things that capitalism can create - the best of all TO KILL the BIG CORPs and I guess become one yourself.

is that so bad?

especially when there is new upstarts threats everywhere...

lol.... some just can't leave the fixed mindset for one minute.

Excellent work, Peter. Jacque and Roxanne are phenomenal as well:)

As a step towards a resource-based economy, our company Domesticated.us is contributing our skills to create practical items for our society. We want to be able to help the transition out of the obsolete monetary system, and to one day provide our goods at no cost.

We support the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project! Happy ZDay 2010!

DOMESTICATED.us

Great informal interview to the genius Peter Joseph:
youtube.com/watch?v=CIINgQ1TooE

History repeating itself. This movement is a return to some of the oldest flawed thinking in existence. It is another attempt to sell the idea of a Eutopia.

Eutopias always always fail because the element of HUMAN NATURE is ignored. Humans are not and cannot be altruistic. This is why a capitalist system is the most successful. Altruism is a requirement for the Z movement to succeed.

Because human nature is what it is, the only way for the Z movement to 'succeed' is to force humans to obey the plan. These kinds of movements always descend into the swarming masses being dominated by a group of elite members who "know what is best" for the common good. The selfishness and human nature of these elite members' turns them into rulers with their ultimate and finally only tool being an iron fist. The elite live like royalty while they suppress the masses who once again are unhappy Always always always. Get that through your heads. It's wishful thinking and a guaranteed dead end.

I'm trying to stick with this video through the end because I'm always interested in a new point of view, but the first 20 minutes have been so full of fallacious logic that I'm starting to doubt whether he has the rational foundation to develop better ideas.

For instance, the utter failure to identify root causes in many of his examples:

In the medical industry, of course there is massive profit incentive to develop a cure for cancer. He is correct that the medical cartel has no such incentive because its present business model relies on treatment, but the medical cartel does not represent the entirety of the market. The reason that there are no other market actors present is that the cartel is granted monopoly or virtual monopoly on both research and practice by a coercive entity (read: government) which it has corrupted.

The root cause is not market activity, it is coercion destroying market activity. The cartel hasn't formed as an inevitable result of a free market, it has formed as an inevitable result of the existence of an entity which enjoys the ability to use violence and coercion without serious opposition for its benefit and the benefit of other organizations it favors. A truly free market implies no such coercion and thus can only exist in the absence of violence, not thanks to it.

In his hypothetical example of the formation of a "natural monopoly" or "natural cartel" he again fails to take into account the incredible pressure the market exerts absent coercion. He assumes that the market exists in stasis after his conclusion, which is false. This monopoly or cartel will only be tolerated for as long as it continues to offer prices at a level tolerable to the market. If it uses its position to hike prices the incentive to compete with it becomes overwhelming. Imagine it charges double the fair market value for product A. I can establish a new business and charge 1.9x the fair market value and have guaranteed business and a huge profit. A few scenarios evolve:

Suppose the cartel does undercut me. I then undercut them. A price war ensues, until we both reduce prices to the lowest level we can afford, a.k.a. the fair market value. Everyone is happy.

Suppose the cartel engages in "anti-competitive" practices, lowering its price to below market value, knowing I don't have the capital reserves to outlast them selling at a loss. The cartel will win this battle, but I will simply come back, or someone else will, as soon as they hike prices again. Perpetuate this cycle for very long and it will run out of capital reserves, so that though I may lose my business the cartel ultimately fails.

Suppose the cartel chooses not to undercut me, but cannot or will not use violence against me. The cartel must then self-regulate, insisting its members keep prices high even though they are losing customers. The incentive becomes strong for cartel members to cheat in order to ensure customer loyalty in this scenario; either members of the cartel cheat and the cartel is de-facto abolished, or it goes out of business.

Suppose the cartel decides it needs to force me out of the market. Normally, it uses the state for this - but if the state is unavailable, e.g. in the drug trade, it will use direct violence. I then must go underground, dealing my goods surreptitiously. As long as I can keep my opportunity cost below 2x fair market value I can still turn a handy profit. If I can't do that chances are I'm in trouble, but this seldom happens (the existence and extravagant profits of the drug trade itself is evidence that profit can be had even when an incredibly powerful violent monopoly - governments - are hell-bent on destroying competition). From this concept is born Counter-Economic theory, but I'll leave that tangent alone.

In any case you end with two results: a free market ensuring that goods are delivered at the lowest possible cost or a non-free market, in which case Mr. Joseph's criticisms don't apply (although I happily accept them as criticisms of any system of state capitalism in practice). I'm waiting to see what he has in store for me in the rest of his lecture.

"Influence and thus corruption is a natural byproduct of our system"

There I think he and I can agree 100%. I only suggest that the corruption is inherent in the establishment of a monopoly of sanctioned violence (government), not in trade (monetary or otherwise, also known as human ecology). Why not propose that we no longer tolerate entities who use of violence, threats of violence, and fraud, instead of getting rid of or restricting the ways in which people are allowed to voluntarily interact? If Mr. Joseph has a better way or organizing society than a barter/monetary system, shouldn't he be welcome to have a go at it? If he can demonstrate that it works better, will people not flock to it? Or does he intend, as I expect to find, that first force be used to institute his idea, then all of us be made guinea pigs - the way the imperialists, fuedalists, state capitalists, socialists and communists have been doing to us for the rest of human history?

To paraphrase: how does a balanced system come out of competition?

Answer: ask nature. Unless you believe in an invisible man in the sky who sets to order all things, or some other similar myth, you presumably found your concept of reality on the idea that order arises from the dynamic balance between opposed forces. From subatomic particles up through planetary ecosystems, anything humans may perceive as order or balance (subjective ideas in the first place) is achieved without altruistic or cooperative intelligence.

The thing humans have discovered is that they can break that balance, insofar as their ecology is concerned, by convincing others to act against their own interests with negative value propositions (e.g. your money or your life). Reject the concept that these propositions are to be tolerated and you are back down to natural competition, in which each individual is responsible for the maintenance of his own values (including basic survival) and must get what he needs by production and voluntary exchange with others - outside arbitrary coercion-based economic systems.

The proposition that market action demands fraud in order to increase competitive edge is valid, but only where the product, process, consumers and competitors are homogeneous, information is protected, and the demand is substantially smaller than the intended supply. This situation does exist frequently and may be a problem if you propose to protect information. If you don't (i.e. you reject intellectual monopoly, yet another product of force-based ecology) the linchpin is removed and the problem evaporates. One can still act on privately held secrets, but it is difficult to both act on a secret and keep the secret; if you don't have the right to proverbially punch your neighbor in the face if he tries to peek in your window (i.e. threaten suit under trade secret/copyright/non-disclosure), your competitor will have a huge incentive to discover your secrets quickly in order to minimize his competitive disadvantage and in this way all interested parties will tend to maintain a dynamic balance of information.

Other forms of advantage are more prevalent when this obstacle is removed: talent, efficiency, quality, customer relationships, wise management. These are all positive values, and there is no reason to discourage them.

No matter how abstract our "work" becomes from our basic needs, we will be doing *something* and if others find value in that, they will encourage us to continue; whether that is with monetary compensation, gifts, verbal encouragement or promotion. It cannot be said to be immoral to be rewarded for excellence.

Re: social conditions:

The existence of non-advantageous conditions of environment is certainly unfortunate. To some extent we must tolerate them; gravity and general relativity are inconvenient for the would-be interstellar astronaut, but he cannot accomplish much by pointing them out and declaring them unfair. For those conditions which are imposed artificially, it is best to remove the artifice. For instance, what stops the person in an impoverished area from going to somewhere they can prosper? Force (e.g. immigration control, bigotry). Find the barriers created by human violence and remove them. Once gone, the cost becomes negligible. For the rest, we must be content work with what we have.

What is the real investment of energy, i.e. the real cost, to travel from, say, Ethiopia to Kansas given abandonment of all coercion? I suggest that it is low enough for even an Ethiopian's budget, though he may struggle harder to meet it than the Kansan would struggle to make the reverse trip; not to worry, he'll soon be a Kansan.

Agree 100% on security. I'm sure at this point nobody is reading my lengthy commentaries.

to chase me, i have a question for u.? do u blog on this website just to get attention, or is the truth so blinding that u just dont want to look. Beside ur politacal views or whatever u belive in, is COMMON SENSE so far from ur grasp that perhaps u are incapable of real critcal thinking. IT seems to me that u are one of those " Self appointed gaurdians of the staus Quo", as peter put it. So my real question is this, What has the monatary done for u? And if it did do something for u, did it give it to at no cost or did u have to stand on someone's neck?

bye the way, To Peter, MR. Fresco and Ms. Meadows and all those dedicated to ending this social fiasco of monotaryism, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. TO all those Ignoramesess, when u get some solid evidince of the good deeds of money, let us know........

very interesting so far!

It is extraordinarily disheartening to witness so many people seemingly incapable of applying any reasonable grammatical construction in their so-called "arguments". First of all, learn how to spell. Second, learn how to appropriately form sentences by utilizing proper punctuation and understanding sentence structure. Third, and what is perhaps most important, do some form of credible research before regurgitating such grammatically incorrect discourse on topics that you clearly misunderstand, know nothing of, or have only formulated opinions about.

Most, if not all, of the questions that have been posted in these comments have been answered in the frequently asked questions section on both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement sites. But, I understand how hard it is the peel away from the latest gossip, the newest controversy over celebrities’ infidelities, and the hottest new phone/text machine/camera/Internet browser/mp3 player/everything you can think of all in one little $500 device that will be outdated in 2 weeks and is marketed as the best new thing to make you think and do less, and put as little effort as possible into gaining a more refined understanding of life to actually sit down (or stand) and read more than a 140-character sentence that has no relevance and shows complete disregard with respect to the English language—or any language for that matter.

Our society, in the United States, conditions us to consistently instill within ourselves the idea that it is far better to believe or to have “faith” in something or someone than to actually know something ourselves. Furthermore, we are taught to “believe” that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion—which, when viewed objectively, is an opinion. However, what is perhaps most detrimental to the Human mind is the fact that we are brought up in a competition-based, fiat monetary system in which we are forced to constantly fight with each other for the necessities of life due to the pretended scarcity generated by the system’s fundamental propensity to keep ‘cyclical consumption’ going.

We can sit here all day and "debate" the efficacy of the current social system; but at the end of the day, our arguments only consist of what we know or think we know up until now—all of which is entirely based upon the environment in which we are brought up. One of the most difficult obstacles that we must hurdle in order to move toward a resource-based economy is the stagnation of ideas that we see pervasive throughout all of society. If anything, we are currently living in a false-Utopia. The term Utopia implies a static, unchanging state of perfection. False-Utopia simply means that we perpetuate stagnant ideas (religions, government, politics, etc.) and chock almost everything that happens up to the category of ‘the way it goes’—our veritable Utopia. However, this is the complete opposite of what this movement stands for. In fact, the whole idea is based on the fact that we live in an emergent Universe which is in a state of constant evolution whether any of us would like to acknowledge it or not. It is this emergent quality in "Nature" that we must align ourselves with if we are to realize any form of true advancement for all species on this planet. The interdependence we share with everything around us is what must be fully supported by any system that we implement. As the only species on this planet capable of making globally intertwining, consequential decisions, we literally hold the fate of this entire planet in our hands; yet risk destroying it all for a bunch of worthless fabric.

The artificiality that is forced upon us all by the established institution serves only to detach us from one another and from the environment by conditioning us to "believe" in some political, religious, governmental, economic or social ideology rather than to actually "know" about how "Nature" actually operates. Profit motivation, and thus the entire notion of monetary economics, has absolutely no physical referent at all and is only self-serving to the institutions that uphold such a pointless ideological disposition. In fact, the concept is self-defeating in the long-run because monetary economics perpetuates the idea that infinite wants and infinite needs can actually be continually satisfied by our finite planet. This, in any system at all, is just not possible.

In conclusion, the corruption we see around the globe is an expected outgrowth of the competition-based mindset. No one should be surprised at all when 2 billion people get left behind; for, it is the functionality of the system itself to create and sustain the social stratification that is present in almost every aspect of our lives. If you do not understand that, just think about it: the rich get richer off of the poor getting poorer. This is an inherent feature of the system that is usually neglected outright because we are fully indoctrinated into supporting this system by any means necessary; even if that means ostracizing people who step outside of the "norm" as Peter pointed out. What we have is a choice; or, rather, a series of choices. There is no such thing as a "good" choice, a "bad" choice, a "right" choice, a "wrong" choice; these are empty distinctions that are based entirely on interpretation. Furthermore, we are by no means limited by the fallacious duality of have only two choices. There are many ways for us to advance into the future. The choices rest in your hands as an individual in our collective, global system. But, before any choices are made; before any decisions are arrived at, there is an understanding that every single person on Earth must mutually realize: We are but one species; sharing one planet; one system; one. I am you; you are me; and we are everything that we conceive.

Peter is the Thomas Paine of our day. Keep up the great work Peter.

Each and every single applause you listen from the public, is a triumph for humanity! Haha; im really glad to hear those applauses, that cheering crowd makes me feel juuuuust nice! =)